Another (possibly) interesting way of looking at the Christmas story is through the lens of economic development. Christmas may be viewed as the story of some very poor people who managed to live through very challenging times, surviving a number of threats to their lives created by the underdeveloped conditions in which they lived.
It is difficult to imagine that life expectancy, infant mortality, or education levels were much better (and were probably much worse) than they are today in much of the developing world. Most children did not live to adulthood, and it is remarkable that a child born under the presumably unsanitary conditions that reigned in the barn of the local inn (itself probably just someone's home, with some rooms rented out to earn some income) after a long pre-natal journey by mule-back would survive.
Perhaps Jesus' birth was miraculous in a more conventional sense.
Indeed, it is unsurprising that so much of the new testament is devoted to accounts of the miraculous healings that Jesus performed--presumably because illness, under extremely unsanitary conditions and with poor medical treatment--would be rife.
Under conditions like this, and where the state was relatively weak and there was no social safety net provided by government, informal social institutions within communities and ethnic groups would take on great importance as the only places to turn when people encountered misfortune and needed a hand. Religious orders, community and family groups, and local power-brokers would be the only places people could turn for help if they were sick or needed money. Small wonder that Jesus' attempts to craft a new social order were frightening to local elites!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Christmas: An Institutional Story
As the semester has come to a close, I've been thinking about the Christmas holidays a bit. Looking forward to being with family and old friends for a little while, and also have been thinking about the Christmas story writ large.
The Christmas story, it seems to me, has rather a lot to do with the things we study in Political Science. I don't know a lot about biblical scholarship, so my interpretation of the story could be all wrong. However, here are my thoughts:
For one thing, the story of Christmas, and the story of Christ, is the story of a political entrepreneur. That is, Christ was, if we are to believe the story the way it has traditionally been told, a person who wanted to change many rules in society. In particular, he took issue with many of the rules (we would call them institutions) that held Jewish society together at about the year 0, apparently hoping to build a more egalitarian order.
Of course, Jewish elites were (unsurprisingly) vested rather strongly in the existing order. They were, in a sense, caught between pressures from below--pressures from masses for an independent Jewish state--and pressures from above--pressures from the Roman empire and its client kings, who above all hoped to maintain the region as a piece of the empire. These elites had carved out a place for themselves in between radical masses and conservative Roman rulers, and they knew that they (and the whole Jewish population in the Middle East) faced powerful threats to their survival that they were unlikely to overcome if they challenged the Roman order too strongly. To hold their own place in society, and to hold their own society back from demanding freedoms too strongly, they relied on a fairly rigid system of religious rules that allowed them to keep the local population under control from within.
Understandably, perhaps, they felt that killing Jesus (and many like him) was the only way to keep themselves from being annihilated.
The success of the existing social order also helps to explain why Christian rhetoric was less successful with other Jews than it was with non-Jewish peoples, and with the outcasts of Jewish society (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.)
There you have it: Jesus, the institutional entrepreneur.
The Christmas story, it seems to me, has rather a lot to do with the things we study in Political Science. I don't know a lot about biblical scholarship, so my interpretation of the story could be all wrong. However, here are my thoughts:
For one thing, the story of Christmas, and the story of Christ, is the story of a political entrepreneur. That is, Christ was, if we are to believe the story the way it has traditionally been told, a person who wanted to change many rules in society. In particular, he took issue with many of the rules (we would call them institutions) that held Jewish society together at about the year 0, apparently hoping to build a more egalitarian order.
Of course, Jewish elites were (unsurprisingly) vested rather strongly in the existing order. They were, in a sense, caught between pressures from below--pressures from masses for an independent Jewish state--and pressures from above--pressures from the Roman empire and its client kings, who above all hoped to maintain the region as a piece of the empire. These elites had carved out a place for themselves in between radical masses and conservative Roman rulers, and they knew that they (and the whole Jewish population in the Middle East) faced powerful threats to their survival that they were unlikely to overcome if they challenged the Roman order too strongly. To hold their own place in society, and to hold their own society back from demanding freedoms too strongly, they relied on a fairly rigid system of religious rules that allowed them to keep the local population under control from within.
Understandably, perhaps, they felt that killing Jesus (and many like him) was the only way to keep themselves from being annihilated.
The success of the existing social order also helps to explain why Christian rhetoric was less successful with other Jews than it was with non-Jewish peoples, and with the outcasts of Jewish society (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.)
There you have it: Jesus, the institutional entrepreneur.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
I'm back
Not sure how many of my regular readers (read: family and office-mates) I've retained through the last semester, but just as a heads-up, I'll be writing these posts again myself for a while now. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Social Groups
by: Ally Kranz
Have you ever noticed how the culture surrounding certain sports shapes the people who are involved? For instance, rock climbers and I apologize to any climber who does not fit this category. My roommate is a climber, so I’ve met a good number of them, and I always get the feeling that they don’t want to talk to me because I’m not a climber, and therefore, could never possibly add anything important to their life. I’ve even overheard one saying something similar! I think what it boils down to is that some climbers are so immersed in the climbing world that climbers make up the majority of their friends, and they don’t feel that they have anything in common with people who don’t know the joys of climbing.
But I have to admit it’s not just climbers (they just make it so obvious). This attitude can be applied to anyone who is heavily immersed in any group. People who have different tastes in music may have a harder time getting along. For instance, the number one indicator of whether two roommates will get along is musical tastes. If their music tastes are similar, there is a better chance they will get along. This also goes for deeply religious people, people of different political parties and any group that someone is heavily involved in.
I usually get upset with people who are stuck in a small closed community and are not open to new ideas or people, but I’m beginning to realize that it would be hard to think any differently when you are only surrounded by like-minded people.
Have you ever noticed how the culture surrounding certain sports shapes the people who are involved? For instance, rock climbers and I apologize to any climber who does not fit this category. My roommate is a climber, so I’ve met a good number of them, and I always get the feeling that they don’t want to talk to me because I’m not a climber, and therefore, could never possibly add anything important to their life. I’ve even overheard one saying something similar! I think what it boils down to is that some climbers are so immersed in the climbing world that climbers make up the majority of their friends, and they don’t feel that they have anything in common with people who don’t know the joys of climbing.
But I have to admit it’s not just climbers (they just make it so obvious). This attitude can be applied to anyone who is heavily immersed in any group. People who have different tastes in music may have a harder time getting along. For instance, the number one indicator of whether two roommates will get along is musical tastes. If their music tastes are similar, there is a better chance they will get along. This also goes for deeply religious people, people of different political parties and any group that someone is heavily involved in.
I usually get upset with people who are stuck in a small closed community and are not open to new ideas or people, but I’m beginning to realize that it would be hard to think any differently when you are only surrounded by like-minded people.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Greenhouse Gases a Danger to Human Health!
by: Tim Garaffa
I know it seems like this has been known for years, but it was not until yesterday, December 7, that the United States Environmental Protection Agency declared that greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons pose a health risk to human life and the environment.
Although the announcement does not bring with it any legislation for the regulation of these emissions, it does pave the way for legislation to be introduced. Legislation is being introduced that will limit the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and legislation looking to tackle powerplants, oil refineries and chemical plant.
The announcement comes as the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark. This is expected to bring worldwide reform aimed at reducing global warming.
Skeptics warn that if regulations are put in place it can serious harm the economic redevelopment of the country. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, “It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.”
I am hopeful that with a government agency finally acknowledging that greenhouse gases are harmful to the health of the planet and its inhabitants, emissions will be reduced, helping to stop the warming of our planet.
I know it seems like this has been known for years, but it was not until yesterday, December 7, that the United States Environmental Protection Agency declared that greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons pose a health risk to human life and the environment.
Although the announcement does not bring with it any legislation for the regulation of these emissions, it does pave the way for legislation to be introduced. Legislation is being introduced that will limit the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and legislation looking to tackle powerplants, oil refineries and chemical plant.
The announcement comes as the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark. This is expected to bring worldwide reform aimed at reducing global warming.
Skeptics warn that if regulations are put in place it can serious harm the economic redevelopment of the country. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, “It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.”
I am hopeful that with a government agency finally acknowledging that greenhouse gases are harmful to the health of the planet and its inhabitants, emissions will be reduced, helping to stop the warming of our planet.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Dispute:
by: Peter Benton- Sullivan
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore is located on North Carolinas Outer Banks. The Outer Banks is a set of barrier islands that stretch out from the land toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Cape Hatteras area was first established under the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, which is located right on the beach. The area was authorized to become a national seashore in 1937, but was not actually established until 1953. It was the first National Seashore created under the relatively new National Park Service. The area stretches over 70miles from Bodie Island to Ocraoke Island. The area was once filled with small beach towns that catered to the ocean lifestyle including a heavy fishing industry.
This all began to change however in the latter part of the 20th century when the Outer Banks and in particular the Cape Hatteras National Seashore became a large tourist pull due to its exceptional fishing, beaches, and surfing. The area grew incredibly fast and began attracting people from all over the eastern seaboard. My family in particular still vacations here and relatives come from states as far away as Illinois.
As mentioned above, one of the greatest parts of the National Seashore is its beaches. They attract fishermen, families, water sport enthusiasts, birdwatchers, and international tourists. However, within the past two years, an issue has arisen in terms of park management and National Park Service policies.
The National Park Service, under a bill passed by Congress in the 1970s, is supposed to implement plans and policies regarding keeping their beaches environmentally and publicly friendly. This means creating smart plans to deal with off road vehicle (ORV) use. However, they never did. In the summer of 2008, the North Carolina Audubon society along with several other local environmental groups sued the National Park Service (NPS) for not having put in place policy regarding ORV use. They won their battle in a North Carolina court, and a federal judge forced the NPS to close all of the beaches along the National Seashore to ORV use and in some cases even pedestrian use. The reason the environmental groups did this was to protect natural and in some cases endangered bird species that live and breed on the beaches. The environmental groups contended that the use of ORV on the beaches destroyed the birds natural habitat, and in some cases prevented the piper species to reproduce because they nest on the actual beach.
The beach closures immediately created tension on the Seashore because many locals believed that this would diminish tourism, and therefore revenue for the area greatly. With beach closures to ORVs and in some cases even to pedestrians, many people would not want to come because they could not be on the beaches as they planned.
The dilemma for the National Park Service is creating policy and rules that will be satisfactory to both sides of the issue. They need to meet the environmental requirements that protect the native bird species, while at the same time allowing for tourism to continue with as little interruption to people’s vacations as possible.
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore is located on North Carolinas Outer Banks. The Outer Banks is a set of barrier islands that stretch out from the land toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Cape Hatteras area was first established under the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, which is located right on the beach. The area was authorized to become a national seashore in 1937, but was not actually established until 1953. It was the first National Seashore created under the relatively new National Park Service. The area stretches over 70miles from Bodie Island to Ocraoke Island. The area was once filled with small beach towns that catered to the ocean lifestyle including a heavy fishing industry.
This all began to change however in the latter part of the 20th century when the Outer Banks and in particular the Cape Hatteras National Seashore became a large tourist pull due to its exceptional fishing, beaches, and surfing. The area grew incredibly fast and began attracting people from all over the eastern seaboard. My family in particular still vacations here and relatives come from states as far away as Illinois.
As mentioned above, one of the greatest parts of the National Seashore is its beaches. They attract fishermen, families, water sport enthusiasts, birdwatchers, and international tourists. However, within the past two years, an issue has arisen in terms of park management and National Park Service policies.
The National Park Service, under a bill passed by Congress in the 1970s, is supposed to implement plans and policies regarding keeping their beaches environmentally and publicly friendly. This means creating smart plans to deal with off road vehicle (ORV) use. However, they never did. In the summer of 2008, the North Carolina Audubon society along with several other local environmental groups sued the National Park Service (NPS) for not having put in place policy regarding ORV use. They won their battle in a North Carolina court, and a federal judge forced the NPS to close all of the beaches along the National Seashore to ORV use and in some cases even pedestrian use. The reason the environmental groups did this was to protect natural and in some cases endangered bird species that live and breed on the beaches. The environmental groups contended that the use of ORV on the beaches destroyed the birds natural habitat, and in some cases prevented the piper species to reproduce because they nest on the actual beach.
The beach closures immediately created tension on the Seashore because many locals believed that this would diminish tourism, and therefore revenue for the area greatly. With beach closures to ORVs and in some cases even to pedestrians, many people would not want to come because they could not be on the beaches as they planned.
The dilemma for the National Park Service is creating policy and rules that will be satisfactory to both sides of the issue. They need to meet the environmental requirements that protect the native bird species, while at the same time allowing for tourism to continue with as little interruption to people’s vacations as possible.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Colony Collapse Disorder
by: Chelsea Gifford
Colony Collapse Disorder, sometimes referred to as honeybee depopulation syndrome (HBPS), is a phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive abruptly disappear. It has no direct explanation although it has been suggested that it may be due to a combination of factors. Starting in 2006, commercial migratory beekeepers along the east coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in their honeybee colonies. Specific symptoms include: the rapid loss of adult worker bees from affected colonies, a lack of dead worker bees both within and around the affected hives, and the delayed invasion of hive pests. Reports indicate that 35 states have been affected. In 2007, bee losses were approximately 30%. In 2008, those losses increased to 35% nationwide. So far, there has not been a conclusive answer as to why this decline is taking place. Some potential causes are mites, pathogens, pesticides, and different management strategies of both the bee colonies and the farms. Do you feel that the importance of bee pollination has often been neglected? What are some policies that could give bee pollination and pest management more importance in agricultural production?
Colony Collapse Disorder, sometimes referred to as honeybee depopulation syndrome (HBPS), is a phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive abruptly disappear. It has no direct explanation although it has been suggested that it may be due to a combination of factors. Starting in 2006, commercial migratory beekeepers along the east coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in their honeybee colonies. Specific symptoms include: the rapid loss of adult worker bees from affected colonies, a lack of dead worker bees both within and around the affected hives, and the delayed invasion of hive pests. Reports indicate that 35 states have been affected. In 2007, bee losses were approximately 30%. In 2008, those losses increased to 35% nationwide. So far, there has not been a conclusive answer as to why this decline is taking place. Some potential causes are mites, pathogens, pesticides, and different management strategies of both the bee colonies and the farms. Do you feel that the importance of bee pollination has often been neglected? What are some policies that could give bee pollination and pest management more importance in agricultural production?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The War in Afghanistan
by: Kylie Bechdolt
On Monday November 30th, the New York Times ran an article outlining the preliminary details of President Obama’s plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Since then, the President has officially announced that the surge will be occurring to “reverse the momentum of Taliban insurgents.” The new troops are to be sent over the next year or year and a half and will bring the total number of American troops in Afghanistan to around 100,000. There has been a large amount of debate over the decision to go forth with the surge and President Obama’s statement that the troop drawdown will begin in July of 2011. Additionally, there is concern over whether or not U.S. allies will contribute more troops to further aid the efforts in Afghanistan. France and Germany have already expressed that they will not be committing more troops anytime soon and it looks like other U.S. allies will only be committing a very limited number of additional soldiers. The war is generally negatively perceived in Europe and many other countries who question whether or not this is a war that can actually be won. Do you think the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause? Also, what do you think this might mean for our international image?
On Monday November 30th, the New York Times ran an article outlining the preliminary details of President Obama’s plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Since then, the President has officially announced that the surge will be occurring to “reverse the momentum of Taliban insurgents.” The new troops are to be sent over the next year or year and a half and will bring the total number of American troops in Afghanistan to around 100,000. There has been a large amount of debate over the decision to go forth with the surge and President Obama’s statement that the troop drawdown will begin in July of 2011. Additionally, there is concern over whether or not U.S. allies will contribute more troops to further aid the efforts in Afghanistan. France and Germany have already expressed that they will not be committing more troops anytime soon and it looks like other U.S. allies will only be committing a very limited number of additional soldiers. The war is generally negatively perceived in Europe and many other countries who question whether or not this is a war that can actually be won. Do you think the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause? Also, what do you think this might mean for our international image?
Friday, December 11, 2009
Property rights and sustainability
by: Justin Burman
Is it ethical to designate ownership of a public goods such as a fisheries to an individual? The ownership of a resource often promotes its sustainability. Resources are better cared for when ownership is designated because it is in the owners best interest to not exploit it. The longer the resource lasts the more profit the owner can obtain. Despite the common befits to both the resource and it owner it seems some what egotistical. Who owns a fishery? Who has the right to sell it?
Is it ethical to designate ownership of a public goods such as a fisheries to an individual? The ownership of a resource often promotes its sustainability. Resources are better cared for when ownership is designated because it is in the owners best interest to not exploit it. The longer the resource lasts the more profit the owner can obtain. Despite the common befits to both the resource and it owner it seems some what egotistical. Who owns a fishery? Who has the right to sell it?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Ban of Federally Funded Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells Reversed
by: John (Brady) Bryan
A huge step in stem cell research was made Wednesday as the federal government has approved the first human embryonic stem cells for scientific research. Previous policy enacted in 2001 during the Bush administration banned the use of all federal tax dollars in supporting research of any cells obtained from human embryos. Now the National Institute of Heath has cleared 13 specific lines of cells that previously would have been off limits to federally funded researchers. The embryonic stem cell lines will still need to be created with private monies but the information generated will be accessible to all researchers. Many members of the scientific community believe that answers regarding the nature as well as possible cures for a myriad of diseases lie in the information held within these cells and rejoice in the removal of the ban of their use as a huge step forward in medical research. Many supporters of this new policy are disappointed however that it did not go deeper and allow federally funded scientists to create embryos to be researched or to clone embryos. Regardless scientists and health professionals across the country rejoice and see this as a victory over the hurdles that blocked access to the multi-billion dollar budget that supports scientific researchers. However not everyone is happy about the new policy, many critics believe that it is ethically wrong for taxpayers to be forced to support research that depends on the abortion of a human embryo. Critics also claim that this policy supports and encourages the destruction of human embryos. I do understand the argument made against this new policy, but personally believe that it is unethical to refuse to conduct such promising research when human embryos are destroyed everyday regardless. What do you think about using government funding to conduct research on human embryonic stem cells?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120201955_pf.html
A huge step in stem cell research was made Wednesday as the federal government has approved the first human embryonic stem cells for scientific research. Previous policy enacted in 2001 during the Bush administration banned the use of all federal tax dollars in supporting research of any cells obtained from human embryos. Now the National Institute of Heath has cleared 13 specific lines of cells that previously would have been off limits to federally funded researchers. The embryonic stem cell lines will still need to be created with private monies but the information generated will be accessible to all researchers. Many members of the scientific community believe that answers regarding the nature as well as possible cures for a myriad of diseases lie in the information held within these cells and rejoice in the removal of the ban of their use as a huge step forward in medical research. Many supporters of this new policy are disappointed however that it did not go deeper and allow federally funded scientists to create embryos to be researched or to clone embryos. Regardless scientists and health professionals across the country rejoice and see this as a victory over the hurdles that blocked access to the multi-billion dollar budget that supports scientific researchers. However not everyone is happy about the new policy, many critics believe that it is ethically wrong for taxpayers to be forced to support research that depends on the abortion of a human embryo. Critics also claim that this policy supports and encourages the destruction of human embryos. I do understand the argument made against this new policy, but personally believe that it is unethical to refuse to conduct such promising research when human embryos are destroyed everyday regardless. What do you think about using government funding to conduct research on human embryonic stem cells?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120201955_pf.html
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Shark Finning
by: Leslie Martin
While I was doing some research today on the practice of shark fining, I discovered a ray of sunshine for predatory shark’s future as the top of the marine food chain. As of April 23, 2009 following the European Union Fisheries Councils meeting where the Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks was adopted, more stringent polices are to be enacted in Scottish waters. The EU has now stated that making stricter regulations on the practice of shark fining is to become a priority and there’s no better time for this to be announced then now!
Shark fining is the practice of killing large predatory shark by chopping off the dorsal fin and then throwing the live body back to the sea to be eaten by other animals or suffer a slow death on the ocean floor. The shark meat is undesirable because there is no market for it and the bodies are bulky and would take up a lot of room on the fishing vessel. The fins that are removed are used to make shark fin soup, a product that is in extremely high demand primarily in China and Taiwan. This multimillion dollar industry is booming right now due to such high demand mainly from China’s emerging middle class. Because of this market many large predatory shark species are being driven to extinction and at an alarmingly rapid rate. Sharks have been at the top of the food chain for an unfathomable amount of time and if removed there is no way humans could cope with their disappearance.
Some of the regulation that this meeting proposed was having an ‘observer’ present on all fishing boats practicing shark fining, This person is supposed to make sure rules are being followed. Also, it is hoped that the extra cost of employing an observer will deter people from applying for fining permits. Although this is a positive step forward for these sharks, much more needs to be done and I fear that the extra cost for these boats will not be a problem since as it stand this industry is extremely lucrative. We can only hope for the best I guess and keep pushing for more effective policies…
While I was doing some research today on the practice of shark fining, I discovered a ray of sunshine for predatory shark’s future as the top of the marine food chain. As of April 23, 2009 following the European Union Fisheries Councils meeting where the Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks was adopted, more stringent polices are to be enacted in Scottish waters. The EU has now stated that making stricter regulations on the practice of shark fining is to become a priority and there’s no better time for this to be announced then now!
Shark fining is the practice of killing large predatory shark by chopping off the dorsal fin and then throwing the live body back to the sea to be eaten by other animals or suffer a slow death on the ocean floor. The shark meat is undesirable because there is no market for it and the bodies are bulky and would take up a lot of room on the fishing vessel. The fins that are removed are used to make shark fin soup, a product that is in extremely high demand primarily in China and Taiwan. This multimillion dollar industry is booming right now due to such high demand mainly from China’s emerging middle class. Because of this market many large predatory shark species are being driven to extinction and at an alarmingly rapid rate. Sharks have been at the top of the food chain for an unfathomable amount of time and if removed there is no way humans could cope with their disappearance.
Some of the regulation that this meeting proposed was having an ‘observer’ present on all fishing boats practicing shark fining, This person is supposed to make sure rules are being followed. Also, it is hoped that the extra cost of employing an observer will deter people from applying for fining permits. Although this is a positive step forward for these sharks, much more needs to be done and I fear that the extra cost for these boats will not be a problem since as it stand this industry is extremely lucrative. We can only hope for the best I guess and keep pushing for more effective policies…
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Agricultural Carbon Sequestration
by: Jordan Osterman
There exists a legitimate opportunity for the United States to reduce our carbon footprint while simultaneously improving water quality, biodiversity, and overall human health. Agricultural carbon sequestration is essentially the employment of sustainable agricultural practices on agricultural land. Practices such as conservation tillage or riparian buffers increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, which in turn, sequesters carbon out of the atmosphere and places it into long-term storage in the soil. The large quantity of agricultural land in the United States amounts to massive potential for use as a carbon sink. Additionally, the ease of conversion to sustainable agriculture practices combined with the immediate sequestration ability of crops makes for a valuable tool for battling climate change on a short-term basis.
Currently there exists little legislation that encourages conversion from traditional agriculture to sustainable agriculture, but under the guise of carbon sequestration policy makers have a large incentive to promote its use. Currently, the Senate is debating the Kerry-Boxer Bill, which, amongst other things, includes legislation that will initiate a Cap and Trade market for trading carbon credits. Included in the bill is language that promotes the use of carbon sequestration for offsetting carbon emissions. The ease of agricultural carbon sequestration along with the co-benefits often associated with the practice should make it one the clear choices for use in the Cap and Trade in market. I sincerely hope that the senate specifically identifies agricultural carbon sequestration as an effective tool in our effort towards curtailing America’s carbon emissions. To learn more about agricultural carbon sequestration go to http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/index.html.
There exists a legitimate opportunity for the United States to reduce our carbon footprint while simultaneously improving water quality, biodiversity, and overall human health. Agricultural carbon sequestration is essentially the employment of sustainable agricultural practices on agricultural land. Practices such as conservation tillage or riparian buffers increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, which in turn, sequesters carbon out of the atmosphere and places it into long-term storage in the soil. The large quantity of agricultural land in the United States amounts to massive potential for use as a carbon sink. Additionally, the ease of conversion to sustainable agriculture practices combined with the immediate sequestration ability of crops makes for a valuable tool for battling climate change on a short-term basis.
Currently there exists little legislation that encourages conversion from traditional agriculture to sustainable agriculture, but under the guise of carbon sequestration policy makers have a large incentive to promote its use. Currently, the Senate is debating the Kerry-Boxer Bill, which, amongst other things, includes legislation that will initiate a Cap and Trade market for trading carbon credits. Included in the bill is language that promotes the use of carbon sequestration for offsetting carbon emissions. The ease of agricultural carbon sequestration along with the co-benefits often associated with the practice should make it one the clear choices for use in the Cap and Trade in market. I sincerely hope that the senate specifically identifies agricultural carbon sequestration as an effective tool in our effort towards curtailing America’s carbon emissions. To learn more about agricultural carbon sequestration go to http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/index.html.
Monday, December 7, 2009
US Tire Tariffs
by: Matt Clark
In a time of increasing deficits, inflation, and spending, President Obama has taken a step to help out the the american tire industry by imposing up to a 35% tariff on tire imports from china. This is in reaction to america losing 5000 jobs in the tire manufacturing industry over the past 5 years to China. The goals of their policy are to increase production and consumption of U.S. Based tire manufacturing and in specific jobs in the steel industry. The group most benefiting from the tariff by far is the United Steelworkers Union who stand to retain thousands of paying members in an industry thats been in decline for the past two decades.
President Obama is not the first president to impose tariffs in favor of large labor unions and not the first to place tariffs on steel in favor of the United Steelworkers Union. The difference between the past and now is the current economic and financial climate here in the U.S. and the world. Because China owns a very large amount of U.S. Debt and produces such a large percent of our manufactured goods means China can really interfere with our markets if it chooses to. When we try and help the steelworkers here with a tariff, we hurt the steelworkers there, leading China to impose tariffs of there own. What will be the impact on us and our “weakened” economy if China begins to impose protectionist policies against our industries? It cannot be in out interest to influence our partners to protect themselves against us, especially in the current global climate.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103957.html
In a time of increasing deficits, inflation, and spending, President Obama has taken a step to help out the the american tire industry by imposing up to a 35% tariff on tire imports from china. This is in reaction to america losing 5000 jobs in the tire manufacturing industry over the past 5 years to China. The goals of their policy are to increase production and consumption of U.S. Based tire manufacturing and in specific jobs in the steel industry. The group most benefiting from the tariff by far is the United Steelworkers Union who stand to retain thousands of paying members in an industry thats been in decline for the past two decades.
President Obama is not the first president to impose tariffs in favor of large labor unions and not the first to place tariffs on steel in favor of the United Steelworkers Union. The difference between the past and now is the current economic and financial climate here in the U.S. and the world. Because China owns a very large amount of U.S. Debt and produces such a large percent of our manufactured goods means China can really interfere with our markets if it chooses to. When we try and help the steelworkers here with a tariff, we hurt the steelworkers there, leading China to impose tariffs of there own. What will be the impact on us and our “weakened” economy if China begins to impose protectionist policies against our industries? It cannot be in out interest to influence our partners to protect themselves against us, especially in the current global climate.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103957.html
Sunday, December 6, 2009
“Europe Places Solar Panels in North Africa”
by: Andrew Sieving
Once again it seems that Europe is ahead of the world in green energy. The Desertec Industrial Initiative, a German led group of energy providers is planning to provide solar energy to Europe from northern Africa by 2015. 15% of Europe’s energy consumption will supposedly come from this grid in 2050. What the article fails to report is what countries will receive this energy, where the energy will be refined, but it does comment on the highly energy efficient cables. Although, Europe always seems to be able to come up with new green ideas, it seems to promote these exclusive benefits within the EU. I wonder if these energy benefits will be available outside of the EU; or will they be highly taxed outside of the group. If European countries can span across a continent to find alternative solar power why can’t the United States harness solar energy in Death Valley or in the many desert regions within our own country. Obviously, corporate mindsets are no fluctuating with the market or our user preferences aren’t environmental. If consumers control the demands of the market then we should as consumer demand green energy.
http://www.enn.com/business/article/40650
Once again it seems that Europe is ahead of the world in green energy. The Desertec Industrial Initiative, a German led group of energy providers is planning to provide solar energy to Europe from northern Africa by 2015. 15% of Europe’s energy consumption will supposedly come from this grid in 2050. What the article fails to report is what countries will receive this energy, where the energy will be refined, but it does comment on the highly energy efficient cables. Although, Europe always seems to be able to come up with new green ideas, it seems to promote these exclusive benefits within the EU. I wonder if these energy benefits will be available outside of the EU; or will they be highly taxed outside of the group. If European countries can span across a continent to find alternative solar power why can’t the United States harness solar energy in Death Valley or in the many desert regions within our own country. Obviously, corporate mindsets are no fluctuating with the market or our user preferences aren’t environmental. If consumers control the demands of the market then we should as consumer demand green energy.
http://www.enn.com/business/article/40650
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Texting While Driving
By: Kelton Kragor
Last year, over 6,000 people were killed and a half-million injured from accidents related to drivers sending text messages. On December 1, 2009 Colorado will join eighteen other states in banning texting, emailing or ‘tweeting’ while driving. If issued a citation, fines range from $50-$100. The new law also bans bus drivers and teens from using a phone in any way possible while operating a vehicle. My question is, how will authorities know if a person is texting or sending an email if that person can easily conceal his/her phone after being pulled over? What do you guys think? Obviously texting has become a major problem and contributed to numerous accidents. Will people collectively stop texting while driving; or will it get worse with new phones coming out every month? I don’t see the fines as being that hard of a penalty.
Last year, over 6,000 people were killed and a half-million injured from accidents related to drivers sending text messages. On December 1, 2009 Colorado will join eighteen other states in banning texting, emailing or ‘tweeting’ while driving. If issued a citation, fines range from $50-$100. The new law also bans bus drivers and teens from using a phone in any way possible while operating a vehicle. My question is, how will authorities know if a person is texting or sending an email if that person can easily conceal his/her phone after being pulled over? What do you guys think? Obviously texting has become a major problem and contributed to numerous accidents. Will people collectively stop texting while driving; or will it get worse with new phones coming out every month? I don’t see the fines as being that hard of a penalty.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Blog Commenting for Public Policy
Folks,
Just a note that I will count any blog comments towards your grade that you make up to the 17th at 11 AM (the end of the final exam time for section 002). There will be postings going up for at least the next week or so, in case you were concerned.
Glenn
Just a note that I will count any blog comments towards your grade that you make up to the 17th at 11 AM (the end of the final exam time for section 002). There will be postings going up for at least the next week or so, in case you were concerned.
Glenn
Nudity in Boulder
by: James O'Connor
For the past decade Boulder has hosted a Naked Pumpkin Run on Halloween. Last year there were over 150 runners, and a dozen were ticketed, however the tickets did not amount to much because identification problems. This year, police chief Mark Beckner has increased the number of officers present and will arrest individuals for indecent exposure, which would mean they would have to register as sex offenders. Beckner has said he is doing this because “We enforce the law.” But this seems irrational on a few levels, first indecent exposure is defined as one exposing oneself in circumstances “likely to cause affront or alarm” running through a crowd of people there specifically to watch the event at 11pm does not fit. In addition the police have admitted they get few complaints about the run and even our mayor supports the run:
“. . . it could be pretty cool to be running around with a pumpkin on your head and not much else”.
Now the City Council is drafting a municipal ordinance making it illegal to be walking/running around the city naked. The upside to this is it would not require violators to register as sex offenders, the downside is that it would make nudity illegal where it is not necessarily now. I personally hope the ordinance does not pass and if you get arrested as a sex offender you should simply hire a lawyer, as Beckner clearly does not have his head on straight. What do you think?
For the past decade Boulder has hosted a Naked Pumpkin Run on Halloween. Last year there were over 150 runners, and a dozen were ticketed, however the tickets did not amount to much because identification problems. This year, police chief Mark Beckner has increased the number of officers present and will arrest individuals for indecent exposure, which would mean they would have to register as sex offenders. Beckner has said he is doing this because “We enforce the law.” But this seems irrational on a few levels, first indecent exposure is defined as one exposing oneself in circumstances “likely to cause affront or alarm” running through a crowd of people there specifically to watch the event at 11pm does not fit. In addition the police have admitted they get few complaints about the run and even our mayor supports the run:
“. . . it could be pretty cool to be running around with a pumpkin on your head and not much else”.
Now the City Council is drafting a municipal ordinance making it illegal to be walking/running around the city naked. The upside to this is it would not require violators to register as sex offenders, the downside is that it would make nudity illegal where it is not necessarily now. I personally hope the ordinance does not pass and if you get arrested as a sex offender you should simply hire a lawyer, as Beckner clearly does not have his head on straight. What do you think?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Environmental Illness
by: Harrison Ferrone
Environmental Illness
My main policy problem that has really affected my life is the governmentʼs
position on acceptable levels of PCBʼs, POPʼs and other various Phalate containing and
offgasing compounds. These include carpets, furniture, water bottles, any plastic and
most of the chemicals that are used in preparing and serving our food, not to mention in
the food itself. Phalates have been shown through exhaustive scientific study to be the
root cause of ALL disease. You may find this hard to believe, as it is not really
acknowledged by most of the medical profession, but that is simply ignorance of the
data in favor of burying their collective heads in the sand. The way phalates do this is
by acting as endocrine and hormone disruptors, neurotoxins and immune system
attacking agents. Basically they mimic body system functions, and then mess them up,
which causes symptoms that we interpret as disease. My point is that the current
regulation standard limits on our exposure to these compounds is way above the
amount needed to cause disease. Hopefully, when enough people get sick and die
from this the government will do something. Hopefully.
Environmental Illness
My main policy problem that has really affected my life is the governmentʼs
position on acceptable levels of PCBʼs, POPʼs and other various Phalate containing and
offgasing compounds. These include carpets, furniture, water bottles, any plastic and
most of the chemicals that are used in preparing and serving our food, not to mention in
the food itself. Phalates have been shown through exhaustive scientific study to be the
root cause of ALL disease. You may find this hard to believe, as it is not really
acknowledged by most of the medical profession, but that is simply ignorance of the
data in favor of burying their collective heads in the sand. The way phalates do this is
by acting as endocrine and hormone disruptors, neurotoxins and immune system
attacking agents. Basically they mimic body system functions, and then mess them up,
which causes symptoms that we interpret as disease. My point is that the current
regulation standard limits on our exposure to these compounds is way above the
amount needed to cause disease. Hopefully, when enough people get sick and die
from this the government will do something. Hopefully.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Afghan Culture Night
by: Kaiti Taylor
On Thursday the Afghan Student Union brought an Afghan Culture Night to the
UMC on CU Campus. It was a large event that lasted for three hours including women
warriors of Afghanistan performance, live music, food, and covered many other areas in
Afghan culture. After 9/11 views on Afghanistan and the Middle East in the United
States and the event was a movement for peace and national unity for all Afghan
people, in and outside of the country. Afghanistan culture is intriguing and beautiful to watch and be a part of. Last year, I traveled to Jordan and Israel to experience middle eastern culture despite of many judgements the US has made on their countries, and even in the UMC I felt like I was part of the culture again. Part of the event that interested me the most and made me want to get involved was the presentation from
Afghans4Tomorrow(A4T). A4T is a non-profit, non-political, humanitarian organization
dedicated to the reconstruction and redevelopment of Afghanistan through sustainable
community driven projects with a focus on Education, its an all volunteer program. A4T
is operating three elementary schools and are trying to bring more schooling to the girls (after an attack of one of their girl schools they were operating, they now have to do small in house schooling with the girls). Not only are they focused on Education, also they run two Health Posts which offer basic health care, medicine and immunizations. The newest program that A4T launched is a program training Afghans to make fuel briquettes for heating and cooking. The facility is in Kabul and people from surrounding villages can come to be trained to start their own briquette business. Not only does this help Afghans start making money (the average Afghan makes two cents per day), the project also benefits the environment (Briquettes produce less smoke and reduce burnable garbage). A4T has teamed up with Bare Root Trees Project and have planted/distributed over 120,000 fruit pine and other trees to communities in Kabul in villages. Its amazing that there is an extreme amount of effort going to help bring peace to Afghanistan and rebuild the country...get involved!!
visit: www.afghans4tomorrow.com if your interested!
On Thursday the Afghan Student Union brought an Afghan Culture Night to the
UMC on CU Campus. It was a large event that lasted for three hours including women
warriors of Afghanistan performance, live music, food, and covered many other areas in
Afghan culture. After 9/11 views on Afghanistan and the Middle East in the United
States and the event was a movement for peace and national unity for all Afghan
people, in and outside of the country. Afghanistan culture is intriguing and beautiful to watch and be a part of. Last year, I traveled to Jordan and Israel to experience middle eastern culture despite of many judgements the US has made on their countries, and even in the UMC I felt like I was part of the culture again. Part of the event that interested me the most and made me want to get involved was the presentation from
Afghans4Tomorrow(A4T). A4T is a non-profit, non-political, humanitarian organization
dedicated to the reconstruction and redevelopment of Afghanistan through sustainable
community driven projects with a focus on Education, its an all volunteer program. A4T
is operating three elementary schools and are trying to bring more schooling to the girls (after an attack of one of their girl schools they were operating, they now have to do small in house schooling with the girls). Not only are they focused on Education, also they run two Health Posts which offer basic health care, medicine and immunizations. The newest program that A4T launched is a program training Afghans to make fuel briquettes for heating and cooking. The facility is in Kabul and people from surrounding villages can come to be trained to start their own briquette business. Not only does this help Afghans start making money (the average Afghan makes two cents per day), the project also benefits the environment (Briquettes produce less smoke and reduce burnable garbage). A4T has teamed up with Bare Root Trees Project and have planted/distributed over 120,000 fruit pine and other trees to communities in Kabul in villages. Its amazing that there is an extreme amount of effort going to help bring peace to Afghanistan and rebuild the country...get involved!!
visit: www.afghans4tomorrow.com if your interested!
Pesticide use in the continental United States
by: Marcus Eisen
Since the end of World War Two there has been excessive use of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides to treat the endless stream of potential threats against our crops, trees, grasses, streams, etc… It has been prescribed for nondescript problems at an exponential rate. In 1947 the production of synthetic pesticides was 124,259,000 pounds; in 1960 that number jumped to 637,666,000 pounds. In 2001 the total number of pesticides used per year was measured at 4,972 million pounds, the majority of which was used by the agricultural sector. While the fact that the total amount of pesticides per year may have increased it’s important to keep in mind that the treatments occur every year and have a tendency to be magnified when passed on through the biological chain. The most intimidating fact about the use of these pesticides is that decades after they have been deemed unusable due to health risks they are still being found in large quantities throughout the Midwest and sections of California. Dieldrin, a chemical that was banned in the 1980s, is still found in Illinois at a concentration that exceeds the wildlife benchmark. While found in other Midwestern states as well, no where is the chemical found in such a high quantity. So, do you think the market for pesticide use is driven purely by economic incentives for invertors and therefore poses a significant risk to unaware consumers? Does it seem necessary for the agricultural sector in the United States to dump almost 3 billion pounds of active pesticide ingredients onto crops each year? What type of policy changes must occur for the public to change its opinion about the widespread use of pesticides? And lastly, does anyone have any personal anecdotes about pesticides?
Since the end of World War Two there has been excessive use of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides to treat the endless stream of potential threats against our crops, trees, grasses, streams, etc… It has been prescribed for nondescript problems at an exponential rate. In 1947 the production of synthetic pesticides was 124,259,000 pounds; in 1960 that number jumped to 637,666,000 pounds. In 2001 the total number of pesticides used per year was measured at 4,972 million pounds, the majority of which was used by the agricultural sector. While the fact that the total amount of pesticides per year may have increased it’s important to keep in mind that the treatments occur every year and have a tendency to be magnified when passed on through the biological chain. The most intimidating fact about the use of these pesticides is that decades after they have been deemed unusable due to health risks they are still being found in large quantities throughout the Midwest and sections of California. Dieldrin, a chemical that was banned in the 1980s, is still found in Illinois at a concentration that exceeds the wildlife benchmark. While found in other Midwestern states as well, no where is the chemical found in such a high quantity. So, do you think the market for pesticide use is driven purely by economic incentives for invertors and therefore poses a significant risk to unaware consumers? Does it seem necessary for the agricultural sector in the United States to dump almost 3 billion pounds of active pesticide ingredients onto crops each year? What type of policy changes must occur for the public to change its opinion about the widespread use of pesticides? And lastly, does anyone have any personal anecdotes about pesticides?
Apologies
My apologies for the infrequency of posts for the last week or so. I'll be catching up now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)