Brian Filak
Smart Growth
As our population continues to grow, we need to adopt new sustainable
designs to accommodate future housing demands. Smart Growth is an approach
to addressing this issue. Smart Growth involves designing communities that are
well planned and remain sustainable with a large capacity of residents. A few of
the many principles that characterize Smart Growth include creating an
arrangement of housing opportunities and choices with walkable neighborhoods
and a variety of transportation options. Implementing mixed land uses,
preserving open space, and directing development towards existing
communities using compact building design area also at the top of the list. A
key goal of smart growth is to reduce our dependence on automobiles and
pollute less. This happens when homes and businesses are evenly dispersed
amongst one-another and an hour commute to work is not necessary. Rather
than spreading further out from industrialized centers, smart growth
incorporates urban growth boundaries and focuses on building up areas that are
already inhabited. Consequently, this means smaller houses and increased
multi-family housing.
Many organizations have collaborated to research smart growth and create
growth policies. Currently, 11 states have voluntarily adopted smart growth
principles and guidelines for development projects. In order for this
development to become more wide-spread, local, state, and federal
governments need to adjust zoning laws and create more incentives and
regulations.
Opponents of smart growth argue that it impedes individual privatization
rights and could have adverse effects. Since smart growth involves packing
more people into less space, more individuals who desire, and can afford, their
own space may push further into rural areas, resulting in more developed land.
Those who challenge smart growth say that condensing communities will make
housing prices rise and hinder the American Dream of owning your own house.
Also, the diversification of smart neighborhoods has the possibility to generate
more crime.
What do you think? Is Smart Growth the answer to dealing with resource
management and pollution from population growth, or can our environment
sustain current trends of sprawl? Are our values regarding the environment
great enough to make us lighten our values for individual homes and yards?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
World Oil Crisis and the U.S. Energy Policy
By: Christine Felz
Volatility in crude oil prices over the past year has prompted research and development of alternative energy sources. Congress took action this past year with the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, passed by the House of Representatives in a vote of 219 to 212. Waiting to pass the Senate, the Act identifies several Greenhouse Gases to be regulated as well as targets for emissions caps. These steps are in an effort to produce clean energy, energy efficiency, reduce global warming pollution, transition to a clean energy economy, and promote agriculture and forestry offsets (PEW Climate). The American Clean Energy and Security Act comes at a moment when all countries, rich and poor, must prepare for a future with limited oil supply.
The book “Twilight in the Desert” by Matthew Simmons projects a future Saudi oil shock that will transform the world economy. Simmons bases his argument off the secretive nature of Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabian owned oil company) and their proven oil reserves. Since the 1990s, Saudi Aramco has withheld production rate information. Current numbers, generated from estimates of oil well production rates, are unreliable for forecasting the supply of oil. In addition, water intrusion issues and pressure reduction in the oil wells indicates the giant oilfields will be depleted much quicker than Saudi Aramco will admit.
Contrary to Simmons, previous Saudi Aramco oil reserve manager, Nansen Saleri, argues with new technology and investment, oil supply will be plentiful for at least another 40, 50, even 60 more years. He maintains that Saudi Arabia contains more oilfields that can be put into production with the right research and investment.
While Saudi Arabia is not the only producer of oil in the world, they maintain great leverage in the world’s oil market. Even if, as Mr. Saleri suggests, Saudi Arabia can produce oil for the next forty years, the United States must take concrete action in preparation for any coming oil shock. Influenced by geopolitical conflicts, technical challenges and environmental concerns, oil’s future remains unstable. The U.S. can only ensure reliable energy supply by turning to alternative energy, which has more benefits than simply energy security. Alternative energy can help begin to slow the release of greenhouse gases as well as create new markets within the United States’ economy. Whether oil is available for many decades to come is irrelevant. Oil’s shaky history should stand as an indicator for the need to put Clean Energy at the forefront of today’s policy debates.
Volatility in crude oil prices over the past year has prompted research and development of alternative energy sources. Congress took action this past year with the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, passed by the House of Representatives in a vote of 219 to 212. Waiting to pass the Senate, the Act identifies several Greenhouse Gases to be regulated as well as targets for emissions caps. These steps are in an effort to produce clean energy, energy efficiency, reduce global warming pollution, transition to a clean energy economy, and promote agriculture and forestry offsets (PEW Climate). The American Clean Energy and Security Act comes at a moment when all countries, rich and poor, must prepare for a future with limited oil supply.
The book “Twilight in the Desert” by Matthew Simmons projects a future Saudi oil shock that will transform the world economy. Simmons bases his argument off the secretive nature of Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabian owned oil company) and their proven oil reserves. Since the 1990s, Saudi Aramco has withheld production rate information. Current numbers, generated from estimates of oil well production rates, are unreliable for forecasting the supply of oil. In addition, water intrusion issues and pressure reduction in the oil wells indicates the giant oilfields will be depleted much quicker than Saudi Aramco will admit.
Contrary to Simmons, previous Saudi Aramco oil reserve manager, Nansen Saleri, argues with new technology and investment, oil supply will be plentiful for at least another 40, 50, even 60 more years. He maintains that Saudi Arabia contains more oilfields that can be put into production with the right research and investment.
While Saudi Arabia is not the only producer of oil in the world, they maintain great leverage in the world’s oil market. Even if, as Mr. Saleri suggests, Saudi Arabia can produce oil for the next forty years, the United States must take concrete action in preparation for any coming oil shock. Influenced by geopolitical conflicts, technical challenges and environmental concerns, oil’s future remains unstable. The U.S. can only ensure reliable energy supply by turning to alternative energy, which has more benefits than simply energy security. Alternative energy can help begin to slow the release of greenhouse gases as well as create new markets within the United States’ economy. Whether oil is available for many decades to come is irrelevant. Oil’s shaky history should stand as an indicator for the need to put Clean Energy at the forefront of today’s policy debates.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Genetically Modified Organisms
By: Ryan Healy
Most of the processed foods that we eat every day contain GMO’s. Crops are genetically modified to produce better yields, grow in many environments, and better withstand weeds and pests. It is obviously beneficial in many ways for producers to use genetically modified crops over natural crops. However there are potentially serious risks being taken. GMO’s have the possibility to spread to the natural environment and take over native habitat. These plants would quickly take over since they have essentially been given an advantage over natural plants to resist pests or acidic soils for example. Another important concern is the health affects GMO’s might have after prolonged consumption. As of right now, it is just too early to tell what negative affects (if any) Genetically modified foods could have on our bodies.
With the exponentially increasing population, GMO crop production could end up being very useful in feeding the billions of people on the planet. Every year there are more people living on less land, and larger crop yields are valuable. Is it our place to be genetically modifying living organisms?
Most of the processed foods that we eat every day contain GMO’s. Crops are genetically modified to produce better yields, grow in many environments, and better withstand weeds and pests. It is obviously beneficial in many ways for producers to use genetically modified crops over natural crops. However there are potentially serious risks being taken. GMO’s have the possibility to spread to the natural environment and take over native habitat. These plants would quickly take over since they have essentially been given an advantage over natural plants to resist pests or acidic soils for example. Another important concern is the health affects GMO’s might have after prolonged consumption. As of right now, it is just too early to tell what negative affects (if any) Genetically modified foods could have on our bodies.
With the exponentially increasing population, GMO crop production could end up being very useful in feeding the billions of people on the planet. Every year there are more people living on less land, and larger crop yields are valuable. Is it our place to be genetically modifying living organisms?
Monday, September 28, 2009
A case for public healthcare.
By: Joey Normandeau
Although many people believe that the government should not create a public option for healthcare because it is a private business, or because there would be too much red tape to get around, the government has already created several public options in other sectors that function very well. Our country has a "socialized" school system in which anyone can participate and there still is a private option available to those who wish for a different option. Most people believe that an education is something that is necessary, and are more than happy to accept a government run program that provides it, so why do many of these same people dislike the idea of a government run healthcare system? Most people believe that we have a right to be healthy, and since the government has provided us with institutions that have satisfied other rights, they should be able to provide us with the means to obtain medical care in order to satisfy our right to be healthy. I'm not trying to argue th!
at the government option should be our only choice, but it should be available for those who wish to utilize it. If the purpose of our government is to provide us with the means in which to thrive, a public option for healthcare will only help to insure that we are able to retain our right to our health.
Although many people believe that the government should not create a public option for healthcare because it is a private business, or because there would be too much red tape to get around, the government has already created several public options in other sectors that function very well. Our country has a "socialized" school system in which anyone can participate and there still is a private option available to those who wish for a different option. Most people believe that an education is something that is necessary, and are more than happy to accept a government run program that provides it, so why do many of these same people dislike the idea of a government run healthcare system? Most people believe that we have a right to be healthy, and since the government has provided us with institutions that have satisfied other rights, they should be able to provide us with the means to obtain medical care in order to satisfy our right to be healthy. I'm not trying to argue th!
at the government option should be our only choice, but it should be available for those who wish to utilize it. If the purpose of our government is to provide us with the means in which to thrive, a public option for healthcare will only help to insure that we are able to retain our right to our health.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Solid Waste Management
One of the most daunting problems the United States and the world as a whole is facing today is the problem of garbage or municipal solid waste (MSW) and what should be done with it. To some people the solution may seem as easy as recycling; however, that is much easier said than done. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, American’s alone produce over 246 million tons of waste per year, and only recycle about 32.1% of that. This means that nearly 167 million tons of America’s garbage is being put into landfills or burned into our atmosphere each and every year. Not only are we wasting valuable resources that human kind will more than likely need in the future, but we are also using up a lot of usable land that will soon be needed by the ever increasing human population.
As a concerned citizen of the United States of America I purpose that something must be done about our waste in order to protect future generations and our planet as a whole. Whether it be through improving standard recycling techniques of collecting plastics, metals, and paper and turning them into new items, or through more alternative methods such as turning landfill waste into electricity, or converting biomass into an ethanol based fuel; it is our job as the next generation to put a stop to our unnecessary wasting and get our MSW under control.
As a concerned citizen of the United States of America I purpose that something must be done about our waste in order to protect future generations and our planet as a whole. Whether it be through improving standard recycling techniques of collecting plastics, metals, and paper and turning them into new items, or through more alternative methods such as turning landfill waste into electricity, or converting biomass into an ethanol based fuel; it is our job as the next generation to put a stop to our unnecessary wasting and get our MSW under control.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Tire Tariffs and Protectionism
By: Ry Parry
In an announcement made Friday, September 11th at 9:00 PM, President Obama voiced his decision to implement a 35% tariff on all imported tires from China (nearly all of which are low-end). At a time when relations between the US (the worlds largest debtor) and China (the worlds largest creditor) must remain positive, this tariff seems to be a very poor decision.
As the primary driving force behind the world economy, the United States must make rational decisions, especially during a world recession. Obama’s new tariff directly violates the G20 leaders’ decision to “avoid protectionist measures at a time of great economic peril”. It not only puts a strain on the relationship between the US and China, but the benefits gained are scarcely even noticeable. With burgeoning international trade, US tire companies have largely given up making low-end tires, preferring to import them and specialize in high-end tires. This tariff is likely to harm mainly the consumer, who will be forced to buy more expensive tires from Mexico, India, Indonesia, and Brazil. Very little money will be fed back into the domestic economy.
Having such a small impact on the welfare of American tire producers, it is hard to understand why Obama has chosen to institute such a policy. Obama recently defended his decision, saying that he was merely enforcing trade laws; however, the International Trade Commission has found no proof of China violating any trade laws, so Obama’s decision is at the very least premature. Obama had promised to enforce trade laws more forcefully than President Bush had, so this new tariff may simply be an effort to appease those who lobbied for protection. Whatever the real reasons, I doubt that this new tariff, and all the consequences that come with it, is justified.
In an announcement made Friday, September 11th at 9:00 PM, President Obama voiced his decision to implement a 35% tariff on all imported tires from China (nearly all of which are low-end). At a time when relations between the US (the worlds largest debtor) and China (the worlds largest creditor) must remain positive, this tariff seems to be a very poor decision.
As the primary driving force behind the world economy, the United States must make rational decisions, especially during a world recession. Obama’s new tariff directly violates the G20 leaders’ decision to “avoid protectionist measures at a time of great economic peril”. It not only puts a strain on the relationship between the US and China, but the benefits gained are scarcely even noticeable. With burgeoning international trade, US tire companies have largely given up making low-end tires, preferring to import them and specialize in high-end tires. This tariff is likely to harm mainly the consumer, who will be forced to buy more expensive tires from Mexico, India, Indonesia, and Brazil. Very little money will be fed back into the domestic economy.
Having such a small impact on the welfare of American tire producers, it is hard to understand why Obama has chosen to institute such a policy. Obama recently defended his decision, saying that he was merely enforcing trade laws; however, the International Trade Commission has found no proof of China violating any trade laws, so Obama’s decision is at the very least premature. Obama had promised to enforce trade laws more forcefully than President Bush had, so this new tariff may simply be an effort to appease those who lobbied for protection. Whatever the real reasons, I doubt that this new tariff, and all the consequences that come with it, is justified.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Green China
By: Mike Schuster
China's Plan to be more Green than US: On Tuesday, at the UN Summit for Climate Change, China unveiled a massive plan to curb their ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Ideas included in the plan: planting a forest larger than Norway, and generating at least 15% of their energy from renewables within at least a decade. China has also vowed to take "determined and practical steps" to improve its nuclear energy, increase energy efficiency and reduce (notably)its carbon growth rate.
The US had no definite plan, but Obama stated that the US is "determined to act". Personally, this looks like the beginning of China taking the green lead in the world (along with all the green business opportunities). There are a few problems with China's ideas (most notably that trees, and therefore, forests, are overall carbon emitters until they reach maturity), but it does seem like China is reacting to this crisis much more efficiently than our country is: maybe some competition from China will be enough to get our government to finally do something meaningful about our energy and environment crisis
China's Plan to be more Green than US: On Tuesday, at the UN Summit for Climate Change, China unveiled a massive plan to curb their ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Ideas included in the plan: planting a forest larger than Norway, and generating at least 15% of their energy from renewables within at least a decade. China has also vowed to take "determined and practical steps" to improve its nuclear energy, increase energy efficiency and reduce (notably)its carbon growth rate.
The US had no definite plan, but Obama stated that the US is "determined to act". Personally, this looks like the beginning of China taking the green lead in the world (along with all the green business opportunities). There are a few problems with China's ideas (most notably that trees, and therefore, forests, are overall carbon emitters until they reach maturity), but it does seem like China is reacting to this crisis much more efficiently than our country is: maybe some competition from China will be enough to get our government to finally do something meaningful about our energy and environment crisis
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Moustaches
By: Devin Perno
My post might not be as much policy related but I found this information to be extremely interesting as well as comical.
I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the “stumble upon” application but basically it is a toolbar application on your web browser that seriously consumes your life. With every click it will take you to a random website on the internet. Recently stumbled upon this site
This site shows the political state of facial hair around the world. From these pie charts, one can see that the world defiantly favors clean shaven men. There are few women that have power as well. What can we get from this? And what does this show us about the political state of the world?
My post might not be as much policy related but I found this information to be extremely interesting as well as comical.
I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the “stumble upon” application but basically it is a toolbar application on your web browser that seriously consumes your life. With every click it will take you to a random website on the internet. Recently stumbled upon this site
This site shows the political state of facial hair around the world. From these pie charts, one can see that the world defiantly favors clean shaven men. There are few women that have power as well. What can we get from this? And what does this show us about the political state of the world?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Partisan Politics vs the Middle Ground: The Failure of Policy.
By: David Olson
When the stimulus package passed into legislation early this year President Obama had one major objective in mind: remediating the continuing slide of our economy and beginning the processes of turning around this “Great Recession”. Yet as the bill passed through the House and the Senate something happened along the way and H.R.1 of the 111th Congress lost sight of its true goal. What was this great “something”? It was the same thing that seems to happen every day now Congress: your and my Representatives and Senators bickered like school children until each had made their own mark on H.R.1; what came out was an act no longer strong enough to repair our failed markets. When we needed Hercules we were given Sisyphus.
Partisan politics is “politics-as-usual” and don’t be fooled by your candidates, change doesn’t come from just one side. The blame doesn’t rest just with the Democrats or the Republicans, the Libertarians or the Independents, blame rests in every citizen who holds onto their values without question and won’t give the time to listen to the opposition. Why is it that when our economists and political scientists tell us to do one thing we seem to do another? The failures of fisheries and greenhouse pollution provide fair examples: we just don’t want to listen to the other side of the argument.
Our federal policies overseeing the management of our natural resources are not sustainable when they so easily could be. To ensure the preservation of our forests, our arctic, our rivers and water, our soil and our atmosphere we need to stop seeing ourselves as Republicans and Democrats and start seeing ourselves as citizens of this country and of the world.
To understand what solutions are needed to overcome the crises we face success can only come when we are open to understanding all aspects of the problem. Ignorance comes when one is too unwilling to seek out the whole truth, and that is why I gladly keep myself as a non-affiliated voter.
When the stimulus package passed into legislation early this year President Obama had one major objective in mind: remediating the continuing slide of our economy and beginning the processes of turning around this “Great Recession”. Yet as the bill passed through the House and the Senate something happened along the way and H.R.1 of the 111th Congress lost sight of its true goal. What was this great “something”? It was the same thing that seems to happen every day now Congress: your and my Representatives and Senators bickered like school children until each had made their own mark on H.R.1; what came out was an act no longer strong enough to repair our failed markets. When we needed Hercules we were given Sisyphus.
Partisan politics is “politics-as-usual” and don’t be fooled by your candidates, change doesn’t come from just one side. The blame doesn’t rest just with the Democrats or the Republicans, the Libertarians or the Independents, blame rests in every citizen who holds onto their values without question and won’t give the time to listen to the opposition. Why is it that when our economists and political scientists tell us to do one thing we seem to do another? The failures of fisheries and greenhouse pollution provide fair examples: we just don’t want to listen to the other side of the argument.
Our federal policies overseeing the management of our natural resources are not sustainable when they so easily could be. To ensure the preservation of our forests, our arctic, our rivers and water, our soil and our atmosphere we need to stop seeing ourselves as Republicans and Democrats and start seeing ourselves as citizens of this country and of the world.
To understand what solutions are needed to overcome the crises we face success can only come when we are open to understanding all aspects of the problem. Ignorance comes when one is too unwilling to seek out the whole truth, and that is why I gladly keep myself as a non-affiliated voter.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Chesapeake Bay Crabbing
By: Virginia Williams
Recently I read an article talking about blue crabs and the blue crab industry in the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is located in Maryland and serves as one of the biggest fisheries and sanctuaries for the blue crab. With this said, the blue crab is a keystone species in the Chesapeake Bay food web. They prey on fish, birds and even other blue crabs. They also enhance the salt marsh communities by feeding on marsh periwinkles. Needless to say, the blue crab plays an important roll in the ecosystem. If you’ve ever tried blue crab (if you haven’t, they are delicious), you’ll understand why it also has the highest value of any Chesapeake Bay commercial fishery. The bay’s blue crab harvest in 2000 was said to be valued at $55 million; however, even with this seemingly successful net worth, the blue crab industry is struggling. Factors such as fertilizer runoff, water pollution and overfishing threaten the blue crab population. Fortunately, the article I read stated that the National Marine Fisheries Services has awarded Maryland $2.2 million in federal fishery disaster funding in order to revitalize the blue crab population as well as to assist the fishermen who depend on it. Specifically, the funding will help hire watermen to monitor blue crabs and to restore their habitat. It will also enforce blue crab regulations and ultimately restructure blue crab fisheries to provide greater long-term market stability. I find comfort in knowing that this bottom dwelling crustacean has a somewhat brighter future and that I will still have a delicious crab feast to return to when I go home!
Recently I read an article talking about blue crabs and the blue crab industry in the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is located in Maryland and serves as one of the biggest fisheries and sanctuaries for the blue crab. With this said, the blue crab is a keystone species in the Chesapeake Bay food web. They prey on fish, birds and even other blue crabs. They also enhance the salt marsh communities by feeding on marsh periwinkles. Needless to say, the blue crab plays an important roll in the ecosystem. If you’ve ever tried blue crab (if you haven’t, they are delicious), you’ll understand why it also has the highest value of any Chesapeake Bay commercial fishery. The bay’s blue crab harvest in 2000 was said to be valued at $55 million; however, even with this seemingly successful net worth, the blue crab industry is struggling. Factors such as fertilizer runoff, water pollution and overfishing threaten the blue crab population. Fortunately, the article I read stated that the National Marine Fisheries Services has awarded Maryland $2.2 million in federal fishery disaster funding in order to revitalize the blue crab population as well as to assist the fishermen who depend on it. Specifically, the funding will help hire watermen to monitor blue crabs and to restore their habitat. It will also enforce blue crab regulations and ultimately restructure blue crab fisheries to provide greater long-term market stability. I find comfort in knowing that this bottom dwelling crustacean has a somewhat brighter future and that I will still have a delicious crab feast to return to when I go home!
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Biodiesel: A Real Alternative
By: Jeremy Sandor
Much has been made ado about the viability and future of ethanol in this country; it was first hailed as the future of American travel and a source of economic salvation for the our nation’s struggling farm industry only to be lambasted as a waste of food resources and demonstrated to be economically unfeasible.
Why not focus on a readily available resource that can be economically competitive today, a fuel that can be produced locally and can use oil waste from restaurants. I’m talking about biodiesel. Depending on the method of production and price of petroleum based diesel, biodiesel is already a cost competitive source of fuel that runs clean and does not require an engine overhaul in order to run effectively. What I am proposing is that the minor tax incentives available for producing biodiesel are ramped up in order to stimulate a greater production incentive for large companies (and small producers). An increased incentive to produce would only improve production techniques and further lower fuel prices. Clearly a small policy tweak could have broad implications for the way that Americans travel. Cheap, clean fuel sources are a win-win proposition and are closer than many realize.
Much has been made ado about the viability and future of ethanol in this country; it was first hailed as the future of American travel and a source of economic salvation for the our nation’s struggling farm industry only to be lambasted as a waste of food resources and demonstrated to be economically unfeasible.
Why not focus on a readily available resource that can be economically competitive today, a fuel that can be produced locally and can use oil waste from restaurants. I’m talking about biodiesel. Depending on the method of production and price of petroleum based diesel, biodiesel is already a cost competitive source of fuel that runs clean and does not require an engine overhaul in order to run effectively. What I am proposing is that the minor tax incentives available for producing biodiesel are ramped up in order to stimulate a greater production incentive for large companies (and small producers). An increased incentive to produce would only improve production techniques and further lower fuel prices. Clearly a small policy tweak could have broad implications for the way that Americans travel. Cheap, clean fuel sources are a win-win proposition and are closer than many realize.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Mental Health
by: Ryan Coyle
The Mental Health Parity Act is a positive policy for people with mental illnesses. This act was passed in 1996 and was just recently updated for 2004-2009. This Parity act helped to improve insurance coverage and benefits for the treatment of mental illness. Mental illness was not always understood in the past and people suffering from mental illnesses were not always treated the same when it came to insurance coverage. This policy ensures that people receive proper treatment for mental illnesses and that they are not discriminated against. What aspect of the policy is that plans must cover employees with mental illnesses under the same terms as other illnesses. One example is the Parity Act in Massachusetts which states that "Health plans must provide mental health benefits on a nondiscriminatory basis for the diagnosis and treatment of biologically-based mental health disorders"...."“Nondiscriminatory basis” means that copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, unit of service limits (e.g., hospital days, outpatient visits), and/or annual or lifetime maximums are not greater for mental disorders than those required for physical conditions, and office visit copayments are not greater than those required for primary care visits"( http://www.mass.gov).
Mental illness is very common these days and so many Americans suffer from it. According to an article in the Washington Post, the U.S is number one in the world for mental illnesses. Since there is such a large amount of Americans who suffer from such illnesses it should be treated the same as any other illness. Mental illness is just like any other illness and people should not be turned down because of it. A mental illness is just like a physical illness and it should not be discriminated against. The Parity Act recognizes mental health an important aspect to an individuals overall health.
The Mental Health Parity Act is a positive policy for people with mental illnesses. This act was passed in 1996 and was just recently updated for 2004-2009. This Parity act helped to improve insurance coverage and benefits for the treatment of mental illness. Mental illness was not always understood in the past and people suffering from mental illnesses were not always treated the same when it came to insurance coverage. This policy ensures that people receive proper treatment for mental illnesses and that they are not discriminated against. What aspect of the policy is that plans must cover employees with mental illnesses under the same terms as other illnesses. One example is the Parity Act in Massachusetts which states that "Health plans must provide mental health benefits on a nondiscriminatory basis for the diagnosis and treatment of biologically-based mental health disorders"...."“Nondiscriminatory basis” means that copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, unit of service limits (e.g., hospital days, outpatient visits), and/or annual or lifetime maximums are not greater for mental disorders than those required for physical conditions, and office visit copayments are not greater than those required for primary care visits"( http://www.mass.gov).
Mental illness is very common these days and so many Americans suffer from it. According to an article in the Washington Post, the U.S is number one in the world for mental illnesses. Since there is such a large amount of Americans who suffer from such illnesses it should be treated the same as any other illness. Mental illness is just like any other illness and people should not be turned down because of it. A mental illness is just like a physical illness and it should not be discriminated against. The Parity Act recognizes mental health an important aspect to an individuals overall health.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Emissions Testing
by: Eric Braden
Recently the inspection on my car was running out so the dread of paying high fees for registration and emissions testing started to kick in. Before I could get my registration submitted I had to go to a vehicle emissions testing facility here in Boulder to get my car “sniff checked”. While I do support clean air (being an ENVS major) the test that ensued was far from pretty. I will admit right now that I do have a modified car, I do have a high flow catalytic converter and I in no way expected to pass the sniff test with flying colors. My car was revved into garage bay by a careless 20 year old I watched helplessly from the window as my car sat on a dynamometer for more than 25 minutes while being brought to redline about fifteen times by more than four guys. The test cost me out of pocket $25 in addition to all the gas these guys burned through. While I failed the test I found it unnecessary to pollute the environment even more with the extensive testing. I see the importance of getting clean cars on the road and dirty ones off but Boulder, or Colorado in general, needs to increase the standards on the way these tests are carried out. Excessive pollution of the environment to prove to me that my car is not up to standards of Colorado law seems like an oxymoron to me.
Recently the inspection on my car was running out so the dread of paying high fees for registration and emissions testing started to kick in. Before I could get my registration submitted I had to go to a vehicle emissions testing facility here in Boulder to get my car “sniff checked”. While I do support clean air (being an ENVS major) the test that ensued was far from pretty. I will admit right now that I do have a modified car, I do have a high flow catalytic converter and I in no way expected to pass the sniff test with flying colors. My car was revved into garage bay by a careless 20 year old I watched helplessly from the window as my car sat on a dynamometer for more than 25 minutes while being brought to redline about fifteen times by more than four guys. The test cost me out of pocket $25 in addition to all the gas these guys burned through. While I failed the test I found it unnecessary to pollute the environment even more with the extensive testing. I see the importance of getting clean cars on the road and dirty ones off but Boulder, or Colorado in general, needs to increase the standards on the way these tests are carried out. Excessive pollution of the environment to prove to me that my car is not up to standards of Colorado law seems like an oxymoron to me.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Can Pollution rights trading effectively control environmental problems?
By: Haley Tamberi
In 2005 the Kyoto Protocol came into effect. The main outcome of this agreement overall is to lower greenhouse gases by 5 percent compared to the estimated level in 1990. The rules of the Kyoto agreement permit carbon trading from country to country. Following the cap and trade theory, which has in the past proved success with acid rain and sulfur dioxide levels. If a country is under the capped limit the extra credits can be sold to another country that is overproducing. Determining the fixed amount a country is allowed to obtain is determined mainly on the emission rates for that individual country prior to 1990. 126 countries have honored this protocol leaving only 4 industrialized countries left to join. US is one of those countries and does not embrace this act then global business competition will impact several US companies. There is an estimate that the greenhouse emissions market will reach $100 billion by 2010. Economically this proposal provides an incentive for companies and countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and benefit. However, many environmentalists believe it is wrong to allow anyone the right to pollute and don’t feel that this tactic will not result in any success. They also argue that countries may be able to ignore the new limits. Carbon trading could lead to more open market trading than actual emission controls. There is a huge debate on whether this the adequate approach to deal with greenhouse gas emission globally. What are your thoughts?
In 2005 the Kyoto Protocol came into effect. The main outcome of this agreement overall is to lower greenhouse gases by 5 percent compared to the estimated level in 1990. The rules of the Kyoto agreement permit carbon trading from country to country. Following the cap and trade theory, which has in the past proved success with acid rain and sulfur dioxide levels. If a country is under the capped limit the extra credits can be sold to another country that is overproducing. Determining the fixed amount a country is allowed to obtain is determined mainly on the emission rates for that individual country prior to 1990. 126 countries have honored this protocol leaving only 4 industrialized countries left to join. US is one of those countries and does not embrace this act then global business competition will impact several US companies. There is an estimate that the greenhouse emissions market will reach $100 billion by 2010. Economically this proposal provides an incentive for companies and countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and benefit. However, many environmentalists believe it is wrong to allow anyone the right to pollute and don’t feel that this tactic will not result in any success. They also argue that countries may be able to ignore the new limits. Carbon trading could lead to more open market trading than actual emission controls. There is a huge debate on whether this the adequate approach to deal with greenhouse gas emission globally. What are your thoughts?
Monday, September 14, 2009
“Obama Energy Policy- First 300 Days” Panel Lecture at CU
By: Lisa Elliott
Recently I attended a lecture of panelists in various environmental and energy fields, where they analyzed Obama’s energy policy thus far into his presidential term. They each gave a mini 5 minute lecture about various topics related to parts of energy policy and then graded Obama and the administration on a traditional academic letter grading scale. Obviously a good policy analysis can’t be done in five minutes but I though the grading scale was an interesting way of doing it and they brought up some interesting facts relating to our energy policy. Here is a summary of main points of a few of the speakers:
Speaker: Lisa Dilling, assistant professor of environmental studies at CU, center for science and technology policy research.
Topic: Science Policy
Obama Grade: A-
Lisa Dilling spoke about science policy. She quoted Obama as saying he was going to restore science back to its rightful place, and that the days of science would go back to ideology. She noted that he had already set change form the last administration by funding science research and development programs and agencies focusing on climate change.
Speaker: Joe Feller, professor of law at Arizona State specializing in environment, water issues, and private property
Topic: What the administration has actually done with fossil fuels
Obama Grade: C
Joe Feller noted that it’s only been six to seven months so there is a very small track record to analyze. He also noted that the current administration is constrained by legislative enactments. He said that slowing the consumption of fossil fuels hasn’t helped. The three major areas are coal, oil and oil shale. Thus far into the current administration:
1.Coal production has not slowed, permits and applications to mine are continued to be passed. New expansion in the Powder River basin has been passed.
2.Oil and Gas leasing on public lands and off shore has continued at pace with the old administration. 2.4 million acres of new leasing in-land and 53 million acres in the Gulf off sore. The only leases that have been withdrawn are in very scenic areas like national parks.
3.The new administration has continued to pursue oil shale, and has not slowed the exploration for oil shale. However the oil shale industry itself is very slow moving so progress has been delayed some
Speaker: Paul Komer, professor at CU in environmental studies. Renewable energy policy expert, Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Topic: Renewable
Obama Grade: Administration A-, Congress B-
Paul Komer spoke about the funding and legislation of renewables.
Funding: He noted that the administration has a lot of money to spend on renewables and has spent a lot of it quickly. He pointed out that it’s hard to spend a lot of money well and do it quickly. He encouraged more analysis before just spending loads of money.
Legislation: Many states have requirements that certain amounts of energy come from renewable. 25 states have this policy. The administration supports an option that requires all states to have a requirement. If the bill passes through congress there will be more incentive for renewable energy.
Recently I attended a lecture of panelists in various environmental and energy fields, where they analyzed Obama’s energy policy thus far into his presidential term. They each gave a mini 5 minute lecture about various topics related to parts of energy policy and then graded Obama and the administration on a traditional academic letter grading scale. Obviously a good policy analysis can’t be done in five minutes but I though the grading scale was an interesting way of doing it and they brought up some interesting facts relating to our energy policy. Here is a summary of main points of a few of the speakers:
Speaker: Lisa Dilling, assistant professor of environmental studies at CU, center for science and technology policy research.
Topic: Science Policy
Obama Grade: A-
Lisa Dilling spoke about science policy. She quoted Obama as saying he was going to restore science back to its rightful place, and that the days of science would go back to ideology. She noted that he had already set change form the last administration by funding science research and development programs and agencies focusing on climate change.
Speaker: Joe Feller, professor of law at Arizona State specializing in environment, water issues, and private property
Topic: What the administration has actually done with fossil fuels
Obama Grade: C
Joe Feller noted that it’s only been six to seven months so there is a very small track record to analyze. He also noted that the current administration is constrained by legislative enactments. He said that slowing the consumption of fossil fuels hasn’t helped. The three major areas are coal, oil and oil shale. Thus far into the current administration:
1.Coal production has not slowed, permits and applications to mine are continued to be passed. New expansion in the Powder River basin has been passed.
2.Oil and Gas leasing on public lands and off shore has continued at pace with the old administration. 2.4 million acres of new leasing in-land and 53 million acres in the Gulf off sore. The only leases that have been withdrawn are in very scenic areas like national parks.
3.The new administration has continued to pursue oil shale, and has not slowed the exploration for oil shale. However the oil shale industry itself is very slow moving so progress has been delayed some
Speaker: Paul Komer, professor at CU in environmental studies. Renewable energy policy expert, Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Topic: Renewable
Obama Grade: Administration A-, Congress B-
Paul Komer spoke about the funding and legislation of renewables.
Funding: He noted that the administration has a lot of money to spend on renewables and has spent a lot of it quickly. He pointed out that it’s hard to spend a lot of money well and do it quickly. He encouraged more analysis before just spending loads of money.
Legislation: Many states have requirements that certain amounts of energy come from renewable. 25 states have this policy. The administration supports an option that requires all states to have a requirement. If the bill passes through congress there will be more incentive for renewable energy.
For all you musically-inclined nerds out there...
TMBG releases the following video on YouTube. I'm dedicating this post to my dad, who spent the '91 recession learning CAD when no work was coming in.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Peruvian Amazon Community Forestry
Community forestry programs like the one reported here by the Peruvian Times, a good online English-language newspaper that reports on Peru-related affairs, often receive great press initially, but then don't pan out as well as initial reports suggest. The article reports that community-held lands will be divided into smaller lots, then managed systematically.
It's not clear if the "division" of the community preserve reported in the article will involve granting private property rights to individual citizens or if the division into lots is just part of a management plan in which the land will remain community-owned and managed--this is a key issue, as are the details of the management system. I've seen situations in which the division of community lands have generated both good and bad outcomes, and I've also seen situations in which the communal management has been both successful and unsuccessful.
The important thing is the details around how decisions about land use are made, who makes the decisions, who is entrusted with enforcement, and how the profits from land management are allocated. If the same people who pay the costs receive the benefits, then things are much more likely work out. If, however, the people who pay the costs of enforcement don't receive the benefits, they simply won't hold up their end of the bargain.
One problem in Peru is that central government authorities often receive the benefits of (costly) actions (such as enforcement) which are palmed off on local authorities. If the local authorities don't receive the benefits of enforcement, however, they're unlikely to be motivated to bear the costs. The same is true in the opposite situation--if the locals accrue the benefits of local forestry but the national government is supposed to enforce the rules, it's unlikely that they'll be motivated to do so.
It's not clear if the "division" of the community preserve reported in the article will involve granting private property rights to individual citizens or if the division into lots is just part of a management plan in which the land will remain community-owned and managed--this is a key issue, as are the details of the management system. I've seen situations in which the division of community lands have generated both good and bad outcomes, and I've also seen situations in which the communal management has been both successful and unsuccessful.
The important thing is the details around how decisions about land use are made, who makes the decisions, who is entrusted with enforcement, and how the profits from land management are allocated. If the same people who pay the costs receive the benefits, then things are much more likely work out. If, however, the people who pay the costs of enforcement don't receive the benefits, they simply won't hold up their end of the bargain.
One problem in Peru is that central government authorities often receive the benefits of (costly) actions (such as enforcement) which are palmed off on local authorities. If the local authorities don't receive the benefits of enforcement, however, they're unlikely to be motivated to bear the costs. The same is true in the opposite situation--if the locals accrue the benefits of local forestry but the national government is supposed to enforce the rules, it's unlikely that they'll be motivated to do so.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Chinese High Speed Trains
by: Victoria Breeze
China is developing high speed trains that can go on both high-speed and normal track lines. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8246600.stm). I’ve been to China and been on every train from the bullet train in Shanghai to the slower-than-slow, overcrowded, stops at every chicken farm train in central China. Thus I’m all for the expansive, and expensive, developments in train lines that China has in the next few years. However, as we all know China has major environmental problems. So I was wondering, how environmentally friendly all these new trains will be. For that matter, how environmentally friendly are China’s trains now? From what I can tell, thanks to Wikipedia, most Chinese trains that run today are electricity based. At this point almost 80% of China’s power is provided by coal. More trains imply more power required and at this point that power will come from coal. A huge policy issue in China is how to reduce environmental problems (i.e. dependence on coal) while still supporting a massive country constantly modernizing and expanding. I think China’s train developments highlight this: an ever growing population of migrant workers means new train lines are needed. At the same time, new train lines require an abundance of new energy which will most likely be provided by coal. Problematic? Yes. However, I believe the train example also presents a solution. As long as China can replace coal as the source of energy (with something more sustainable –wind, water, etc) new train lines can continue to be built without threatening the environment or China’s development. Two points I’d like to ask the readers about, broadening from this train example. One: Do you think China’s development can be paired with sustainability? Two: should America invest more in trains since they have the potential to run on clean energy (and just make fun traveling)?
China is developing high speed trains that can go on both high-speed and normal track lines. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8246600.stm). I’ve been to China and been on every train from the bullet train in Shanghai to the slower-than-slow, overcrowded, stops at every chicken farm train in central China. Thus I’m all for the expansive, and expensive, developments in train lines that China has in the next few years. However, as we all know China has major environmental problems. So I was wondering, how environmentally friendly all these new trains will be. For that matter, how environmentally friendly are China’s trains now? From what I can tell, thanks to Wikipedia, most Chinese trains that run today are electricity based. At this point almost 80% of China’s power is provided by coal. More trains imply more power required and at this point that power will come from coal. A huge policy issue in China is how to reduce environmental problems (i.e. dependence on coal) while still supporting a massive country constantly modernizing and expanding. I think China’s train developments highlight this: an ever growing population of migrant workers means new train lines are needed. At the same time, new train lines require an abundance of new energy which will most likely be provided by coal. Problematic? Yes. However, I believe the train example also presents a solution. As long as China can replace coal as the source of energy (with something more sustainable –wind, water, etc) new train lines can continue to be built without threatening the environment or China’s development. Two points I’d like to ask the readers about, broadening from this train example. One: Do you think China’s development can be paired with sustainability? Two: should America invest more in trains since they have the potential to run on clean energy (and just make fun traveling)?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Upcoming Bolivian Election
The economist has a pretty good summary of the standings of the upcoming Bolivian presidential election--something hard to find in English--here.
Coal Ash Regulations: Not so Clean
By: Sarah Gardiner
Delicious, nothing quite like the fresh taste of a glass of water coupled with some coal ash. Residents of Uniontown, Alabama are now the proud claimers to this tainted water. Shaila Dewan exposes the heinous allocation of this coal ash waste in her article, “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash”. In this case coal ash is transported 350 miles and over state lines. Interestingly, Uniontown is a very poor community, and 70% African-American. These landfills are often put in poor counties because on the surface they bring in revenue, and create jobs. However, as evident with the Arrowhead Landfill spill, there are many external costs to this seemingly simple, economy boosting revenue.
The local environmental management has lax regulations on this hazardous waste, and gives out coal permits generously. The EPA has yet to even label the coal ash as hazardous waste. When a spill does occur at one of the landfills the citizen’s of the community health is at risk as it escapes into the local environment. Coal ash contains toxins like arsenic, and lead, which can then contaminate the water. These landfills pop up in mostly downtrodden communities, and also predominately African-American communities. Is it possible that these specific fly ash issues are evidence of environmental racism? And also, when will the EPA look into the recognition of this obviously hazardous material?
Dewain, Sheila. “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash”. New York Times: 30 August 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30ash.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=clash%20in%20alabama%20over%20tennessee%20coal%20ash&st=cse.
Delicious, nothing quite like the fresh taste of a glass of water coupled with some coal ash. Residents of Uniontown, Alabama are now the proud claimers to this tainted water. Shaila Dewan exposes the heinous allocation of this coal ash waste in her article, “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash”. In this case coal ash is transported 350 miles and over state lines. Interestingly, Uniontown is a very poor community, and 70% African-American. These landfills are often put in poor counties because on the surface they bring in revenue, and create jobs. However, as evident with the Arrowhead Landfill spill, there are many external costs to this seemingly simple, economy boosting revenue.
The local environmental management has lax regulations on this hazardous waste, and gives out coal permits generously. The EPA has yet to even label the coal ash as hazardous waste. When a spill does occur at one of the landfills the citizen’s of the community health is at risk as it escapes into the local environment. Coal ash contains toxins like arsenic, and lead, which can then contaminate the water. These landfills pop up in mostly downtrodden communities, and also predominately African-American communities. Is it possible that these specific fly ash issues are evidence of environmental racism? And also, when will the EPA look into the recognition of this obviously hazardous material?
Dewain, Sheila. “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash”. New York Times: 30 August 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30ash.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=clash%20in%20alabama%20over%20tennessee%20coal%20ash&st=cse.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
A concern about Senate Bill 09-108: Pay more to save more?
By: David McKinley
Earlier this summer a new bill was passed known as the FASTER bill that would help the state increase revenue for road projects and other areas that need funding. The very basics of how this bill affects the citizens is that when someone registers a vehicle late, you will owe 25 dollars a month every month after the grace period of one month. This is all fine and good right? This seems fair if you are late on paying your registration.
There is however a problem with this, an area that has been overlooked. I have a motorcycle that was just a dirt bike that was converted to be street legal, and I once had it on the road as a means of fuel efficient transportation, until I purchased a real street motorcycle. The time came where I wanted this vehicle on the road once again, as I had transferred the registration and my license plate to the later bike, and I was told I needed to pay a 100 dollar late fee. I was unsure what I was late for, as this was not a full time road vehicle, though unfortunately it turns out that there were no concessions made for vehicles of this sort.
If I was the only one with this problem I would let it go, however I am aware of others who had this same event happen. Wouldn’t this bill do the right thing by not making it harder for fuel efficient vehicles to get on the road, especially with this economy, the concern over oil, and the environmental impact of CO2?
Earlier this summer a new bill was passed known as the FASTER bill that would help the state increase revenue for road projects and other areas that need funding. The very basics of how this bill affects the citizens is that when someone registers a vehicle late, you will owe 25 dollars a month every month after the grace period of one month. This is all fine and good right? This seems fair if you are late on paying your registration.
There is however a problem with this, an area that has been overlooked. I have a motorcycle that was just a dirt bike that was converted to be street legal, and I once had it on the road as a means of fuel efficient transportation, until I purchased a real street motorcycle. The time came where I wanted this vehicle on the road once again, as I had transferred the registration and my license plate to the later bike, and I was told I needed to pay a 100 dollar late fee. I was unsure what I was late for, as this was not a full time road vehicle, though unfortunately it turns out that there were no concessions made for vehicles of this sort.
If I was the only one with this problem I would let it go, however I am aware of others who had this same event happen. Wouldn’t this bill do the right thing by not making it harder for fuel efficient vehicles to get on the road, especially with this economy, the concern over oil, and the environmental impact of CO2?
Automobiles in the World’s Most Populous Country
By: Lukas Eddy
It’s common knowledge that as China’s population and economy continue to expand, pollution and environmental degradation are only getting worse. One of the bigger aspects of this issue is the growing percentage of Chinese owning cars. The government knows the implications of more carbon-emitting and resource-depleting machines, and has taken several methods to combat it, such as increasing public transportation infrastructures and improving fuel economy standards. But how effective are they?
An article I read (http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/08/18/1) mentioned that more cars means more suburban sprawl. It even claimed Beijing was setting itself up to be the next Los Angeles! Now it’s looking that not only will China continue adding thousands of cars to its streets daily, but people will be driving significantly more due to the introduction of suburbs. Public transportation is always an option, but people will still have to use it for longer distances from the suburbs.
Ultimately, the only solution I can see is dramatically increasing fuel efficiency, thus making cars only available to the rich. This is a prime example of the individual preference vs. collective outcomes: the Chinese consumer would benefit far more from owning a car than he would suffer from the pollution caused by that car.
Should cars be affordable and dirty, or expensive but clean? How this policy might work in the US? Just how big of a luxury should the automobile be considered?
It’s common knowledge that as China’s population and economy continue to expand, pollution and environmental degradation are only getting worse. One of the bigger aspects of this issue is the growing percentage of Chinese owning cars. The government knows the implications of more carbon-emitting and resource-depleting machines, and has taken several methods to combat it, such as increasing public transportation infrastructures and improving fuel economy standards. But how effective are they?
An article I read (http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/08/18/1) mentioned that more cars means more suburban sprawl. It even claimed Beijing was setting itself up to be the next Los Angeles! Now it’s looking that not only will China continue adding thousands of cars to its streets daily, but people will be driving significantly more due to the introduction of suburbs. Public transportation is always an option, but people will still have to use it for longer distances from the suburbs.
Ultimately, the only solution I can see is dramatically increasing fuel efficiency, thus making cars only available to the rich. This is a prime example of the individual preference vs. collective outcomes: the Chinese consumer would benefit far more from owning a car than he would suffer from the pollution caused by that car.
Should cars be affordable and dirty, or expensive but clean? How this policy might work in the US? Just how big of a luxury should the automobile be considered?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Renewable Energy Tax Credits
By: Beth Adams
Somehow we (meaning the U.S. specifically in this context) need to be investing more time and energy into research and development for renewable energy technology. Obviously people need financial incentive in order for enough of them to do the right thing. It is no longer debated (to my knowledge) that we need to be utilizing more renewable sources for our energy needs, but it seems to me that enough resources are being allocated to achieve that goal. Does everyone agree? Doesn’t the government need to do more to ensure that we are harnessing other energy sources available to us? Whether one looks at the energy problem with concerns for national security or environmental reasons, many of the same solutions could be used to ease either concern.
I read about a tax credit that was to be included in Obama’s February 2009 economic stimulus package that would give a tax credit incentive to companies that added a renewable energy fund to their 401 (k) plans offered to employees. This seems like an excellent idea to get more resources to where they are needed. The plan is estimated to cost the government $7 to $8 billion, but it is estimated that it will generate $60 to $100 billion in renewable energy investment in addition to creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Any thoughts or reservations? Does anyone know of anything similar that the government is doing?
Somehow we (meaning the U.S. specifically in this context) need to be investing more time and energy into research and development for renewable energy technology. Obviously people need financial incentive in order for enough of them to do the right thing. It is no longer debated (to my knowledge) that we need to be utilizing more renewable sources for our energy needs, but it seems to me that enough resources are being allocated to achieve that goal. Does everyone agree? Doesn’t the government need to do more to ensure that we are harnessing other energy sources available to us? Whether one looks at the energy problem with concerns for national security or environmental reasons, many of the same solutions could be used to ease either concern.
I read about a tax credit that was to be included in Obama’s February 2009 economic stimulus package that would give a tax credit incentive to companies that added a renewable energy fund to their 401 (k) plans offered to employees. This seems like an excellent idea to get more resources to where they are needed. The plan is estimated to cost the government $7 to $8 billion, but it is estimated that it will generate $60 to $100 billion in renewable energy investment in addition to creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Any thoughts or reservations? Does anyone know of anything similar that the government is doing?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Marine Mammal Hunting and Japan
By Maddie Cahill
I recently saw a fantastic documentary called “The Cove”. The documentary explores the annual dolphin slaughter in the Taiji, Japan. Close to 23,000 bottlenose and risso’s dolphins are slaughtered each year in this secretive cove. A few of the more beautiful dolphins are selected and kept alive only to be sold to aquariums and dolphinariums around the world. The rest of the dolphins are slaughtered and sold for meat. Interestingly enough, dolphin meat is so high in mercury that it is extremely dangerous to eat. A lot of times the dolphin meat is then mislabeled and sold as whale meat. As I understand it, it is a small number of Japanese fishermen that profit from this practice. The fishermen claim that the annual dolphin slaughter is tradition. The documentary really opens up a discussion about animal rights, as well as the issue of national health. The documentary is geared toward possibly sparking a change in Japan’s whaling policy. Japan is known to be the most powerful holdout on the worldwide ban of whaling. Dolphins are some of the most intelligent animals, and we are probably just scratching the surface in understanding just how smart they are. Has anyone seen “The Cove”? What are your thoughts on whaling?
I recently saw a fantastic documentary called “The Cove”. The documentary explores the annual dolphin slaughter in the Taiji, Japan. Close to 23,000 bottlenose and risso’s dolphins are slaughtered each year in this secretive cove. A few of the more beautiful dolphins are selected and kept alive only to be sold to aquariums and dolphinariums around the world. The rest of the dolphins are slaughtered and sold for meat. Interestingly enough, dolphin meat is so high in mercury that it is extremely dangerous to eat. A lot of times the dolphin meat is then mislabeled and sold as whale meat. As I understand it, it is a small number of Japanese fishermen that profit from this practice. The fishermen claim that the annual dolphin slaughter is tradition. The documentary really opens up a discussion about animal rights, as well as the issue of national health. The documentary is geared toward possibly sparking a change in Japan’s whaling policy. Japan is known to be the most powerful holdout on the worldwide ban of whaling. Dolphins are some of the most intelligent animals, and we are probably just scratching the surface in understanding just how smart they are. Has anyone seen “The Cove”? What are your thoughts on whaling?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Health Care: Another Reason to go Postal?
By: Tevis Blom
For some time I have had positive thoughts about nationalized health-care. My experiences with insurance companies, HMO's, and 'Western Medicine' have left a sinking feeling that our 'health care providers' care very little about our actual well being. Having been without insurance in the past, I was eager for some sort of nationalized care.
I engaged in a [friendly] debate with my father about the health care scenario recently, and I believe he has changed my mind. His argument was this: In San Jose, CA, in the 1990's, the state of public schools was such that schools were closing and students were being crowded into schools that remained open. The high school I would have attended had subsequent overcrowding problems, gang issues, lack of adequate services, etc. My parents decided that perhaps private school was an option.
My father's simple argument was this: If a state can not successfully run its schools, then how can it possibly run health-care? He furthered his argument by noting that he had to pay taxes that supported schools he no longer used, and received no tax break on tuition to a private school (tuition that was payed with wages already taxed). In the case of health care, he argued that he would be paying for services that he would "prefer not to use", I.e. in his mind he'd rather pay for private care than deal with "governmental health care".
If health care achieves the same standards of excellence as academics in our country, I think I will be searching for private care!
For some time I have had positive thoughts about nationalized health-care. My experiences with insurance companies, HMO's, and 'Western Medicine' have left a sinking feeling that our 'health care providers' care very little about our actual well being. Having been without insurance in the past, I was eager for some sort of nationalized care.
I engaged in a [friendly] debate with my father about the health care scenario recently, and I believe he has changed my mind. His argument was this: In San Jose, CA, in the 1990's, the state of public schools was such that schools were closing and students were being crowded into schools that remained open. The high school I would have attended had subsequent overcrowding problems, gang issues, lack of adequate services, etc. My parents decided that perhaps private school was an option.
My father's simple argument was this: If a state can not successfully run its schools, then how can it possibly run health-care? He furthered his argument by noting that he had to pay taxes that supported schools he no longer used, and received no tax break on tuition to a private school (tuition that was payed with wages already taxed). In the case of health care, he argued that he would be paying for services that he would "prefer not to use", I.e. in his mind he'd rather pay for private care than deal with "governmental health care".
If health care achieves the same standards of excellence as academics in our country, I think I will be searching for private care!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Another Opportunity
For those of you in my class interested in energy policy--if you attend and compose a reflection on the following event at the law school, you can use it as your blog post or to replace a missed class session:
A National Energy Policy for the 21st Century
James E. Rogers,
Chairman, President and CEO, Duke Energy
Thursday, September 10, 2009
5-6 PM
University of Colorado Law School
A National Energy Policy for the 21st Century
James E. Rogers,
Chairman, President and CEO, Duke Energy
Thursday, September 10, 2009
5-6 PM
University of Colorado Law School
Values and Policy Analysis
Nathan Briley’s Blog Post:
When using the social sciences approach to construct a policy analysis, a considerable emphasis is placed on identifying the values that drive the rest of the analysis. Performing policy analyses with a plurality of values in mind makes a lot of sense, but it leads to an important political question: whose values? For example, should justice, quality of care or economic efficiency drive health care reform? One plausible answer is that the will of the people should determine this. If the people desire an efficient health care system, then the goals of our policy analysis should reflect that value. Of course, if we hold this principle for determining which values drive policy, we then face the additional problem of determining what the people actually value and then integrating that into our policies. No small task. For one potential solution to this general political problem, we can turn to what the State of Oregon has created through their Oregon Shines program. In brief, the Oregon Shines program allows state legislators to systematically determine what the citizens of the state value in regards various policy areas. State legislators are then supposed to be guided by these citizen created values and associated goals. Instead of simply assuming that political representatives will actually craft policy with the values of the citizens in mind, the Oregon Shines program provides an additional mechanism for ensuring that the values of the people being governed are the values driving policy decisions.
When using the social sciences approach to construct a policy analysis, a considerable emphasis is placed on identifying the values that drive the rest of the analysis. Performing policy analyses with a plurality of values in mind makes a lot of sense, but it leads to an important political question: whose values? For example, should justice, quality of care or economic efficiency drive health care reform? One plausible answer is that the will of the people should determine this. If the people desire an efficient health care system, then the goals of our policy analysis should reflect that value. Of course, if we hold this principle for determining which values drive policy, we then face the additional problem of determining what the people actually value and then integrating that into our policies. No small task. For one potential solution to this general political problem, we can turn to what the State of Oregon has created through their Oregon Shines program. In brief, the Oregon Shines program allows state legislators to systematically determine what the citizens of the state value in regards various policy areas. State legislators are then supposed to be guided by these citizen created values and associated goals. Instead of simply assuming that political representatives will actually craft policy with the values of the citizens in mind, the Oregon Shines program provides an additional mechanism for ensuring that the values of the people being governed are the values driving policy decisions.
Class meeting on Friday
If you're in my class:
There has been a change of plans--next week, class will meet on both Wed. and Fri. at the normal times.
Sorry for the confusion, guys. I'm going to be back from D.C. earlier than I thought I would, so we'll have class on Friday.
There has been a change of plans--next week, class will meet on both Wed. and Fri. at the normal times.
Sorry for the confusion, guys. I'm going to be back from D.C. earlier than I thought I would, so we'll have class on Friday.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Fate of Afghanistan
Blog by: Joe Blinn
A NY times article wrote today that the deputy chief of intelligence of Afghanistan was killed by a suicide bomber Wednesday morning in Afghanistan. Dr. Abdullah Laghmani was leaving the mosque in Laghman when a man ran up to him and detonated an explosive. The city of Laghman was not known to have much Taliban influence, but this just goes to show that the Taliban isa ruthless society with no boundaries.
I ultimately came to this question. In Afghanistan, where does the political obligation lie? Here in the United States of America it is clear that citizens have large political obligation towards our government to follow laws and things of that nature. All I hear in the news and in the media regarding the middle-east seems to just be an update of the latest suicide bomb, or newest terrorist threat, or most recent death toll; indicating that in Afghanistan there is little to no political obligation- to the Afghan government. The Taliban has such a huge influence in this part of the world they have many followers, which takes away support for the local government.
Is it possible to have two powers of authority in a functioning society? In this case I would say absolutely not, simply because the values of the Taliban, and the values of the Afghan government are vastly differing.
What then is the solution to the problem in Afghanistan? I realize that has been a question that has been attempted to be answered for years and years, so perhaps a better question would be; Will Afghanistan always have the fear of the Taliban lurking over their shoulder or will they every be freed from this barbaric group?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?_r=1&hp
By STEPHEN FARRELL and ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
Published: September 2, 2009
A NY times article wrote today that the deputy chief of intelligence of Afghanistan was killed by a suicide bomber Wednesday morning in Afghanistan. Dr. Abdullah Laghmani was leaving the mosque in Laghman when a man ran up to him and detonated an explosive. The city of Laghman was not known to have much Taliban influence, but this just goes to show that the Taliban isa ruthless society with no boundaries.
I ultimately came to this question. In Afghanistan, where does the political obligation lie? Here in the United States of America it is clear that citizens have large political obligation towards our government to follow laws and things of that nature. All I hear in the news and in the media regarding the middle-east seems to just be an update of the latest suicide bomb, or newest terrorist threat, or most recent death toll; indicating that in Afghanistan there is little to no political obligation- to the Afghan government. The Taliban has such a huge influence in this part of the world they have many followers, which takes away support for the local government.
Is it possible to have two powers of authority in a functioning society? In this case I would say absolutely not, simply because the values of the Taliban, and the values of the Afghan government are vastly differing.
What then is the solution to the problem in Afghanistan? I realize that has been a question that has been attempted to be answered for years and years, so perhaps a better question would be; Will Afghanistan always have the fear of the Taliban lurking over their shoulder or will they every be freed from this barbaric group?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?_r=1&hp
By STEPHEN FARRELL and ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
Published: September 2, 2009
For My Students: Health Care Reform Town Hall
Folks,
Jared Polis is holding a town hall meeting tomorrow night (Friday Sept. 4th) at CU regarding health care reform. If you're interested in attending and putting together a writeup that expresses your thoughts on the meeting which I can post here (on the blog), and you're in my class, I'll put it up right away and it will take the place of the date you signed up for the first week.
If you'd rather blog on your assigned date, you can still do that. I'll post your writeup and you can use the writeup as a replacement for a missed day in class that you would like to receive credit for.
The announcement:
Townhall meeting with US Congressman Jared Polis
The University of Colorado Student Union (UCSU) would like you to come join Congressman Jared Polis at a townhallmeeting to discuss healthcare 7 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 4 in the UMC’s Glenn Miller Ballroom. Doors will open to students and the public at 6:30 p.m. Rep. Polis will begin with a short speech and then will answer questions from the audience on health care reform. Rep. Polis represents the campus and students of CU and UCSU would like to encourage as many students as possible to attend the event. If you have any questions please contact anthony.delarosa@colorado.edu
Jared Polis is holding a town hall meeting tomorrow night (Friday Sept. 4th) at CU regarding health care reform. If you're interested in attending and putting together a writeup that expresses your thoughts on the meeting which I can post here (on the blog), and you're in my class, I'll put it up right away and it will take the place of the date you signed up for the first week.
If you'd rather blog on your assigned date, you can still do that. I'll post your writeup and you can use the writeup as a replacement for a missed day in class that you would like to receive credit for.
The announcement:
Townhall meeting with US Congressman Jared Polis
The University of Colorado Student Union (UCSU) would like you to come join Congressman Jared Polis at a townhallmeeting to discuss healthcare 7 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 4 in the UMC’s Glenn Miller Ballroom. Doors will open to students and the public at 6:30 p.m. Rep. Polis will begin with a short speech and then will answer questions from the audience on health care reform. Rep. Polis represents the campus and students of CU and UCSU would like to encourage as many students as possible to attend the event. If you have any questions please contact anthony.delarosa@colorado.edu
AIDS education
Always a contentious issue, the AIDS education debate is another area where the primary issues under debate are not over appropriate policies to combat an agreed-upon problem, but over appropriate goals and values, and by extension, the very nature of the problem at issue. A new UNESCO report encourages explicit discussion of sexual topics with children to prevents AIDS transmission and conservative groups react, as discussed in the New York Times here. Thoughts on these values?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Unbiased sources of information
A number of people commented on my posts about sources of unbiased information on health care--seems there is a consensus that such information is at a premium.
I got to thinking about this question, and it occurred to me that private news media should be such a source of information for average people--in theory, the media sees itself as an institution that passes on comprehensible and balanced information about political topics to normal people. Is this any longer the case, however?
I remember once upon a time when CNN was such a source of unbiased information (a time before FOX and Bill O'Reilly), but those times are long gone, and don't appear to be coming back.
There was also a time when people believed that the internet (and alternative sources of information like blogs, etc.) would replace profit-seeking media with another model. This may ultimately prove to be true, but the problem is that internet media models mostly seem to segment people into similar ideological groups. People read the stuff that interests them, not the other side, so we all get more polarized in the process. I find that this is true of my own blog reading, though it's not a particular ideological slant that I have, but I mostly read Political Science and Latin America stuff, with the occasional nerdy comic strip thrown in.
I got to thinking about this question, and it occurred to me that private news media should be such a source of information for average people--in theory, the media sees itself as an institution that passes on comprehensible and balanced information about political topics to normal people. Is this any longer the case, however?
I remember once upon a time when CNN was such a source of unbiased information (a time before FOX and Bill O'Reilly), but those times are long gone, and don't appear to be coming back.
There was also a time when people believed that the internet (and alternative sources of information like blogs, etc.) would replace profit-seeking media with another model. This may ultimately prove to be true, but the problem is that internet media models mostly seem to segment people into similar ideological groups. People read the stuff that interests them, not the other side, so we all get more polarized in the process. I find that this is true of my own blog reading, though it's not a particular ideological slant that I have, but I mostly read Political Science and Latin America stuff, with the occasional nerdy comic strip thrown in.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Glad I'm in the good 'ol U.S. of A.
Shenanigans like this make me glad that I'm a citizen of the US--especially since my wife works as a district attorney. Let's hear it for the rule of law and a functioning criminal justice system!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)