So I was reading a couple of articles on the legislation in the United States that was stopped before it began on the possible drilling of off-shore locations for an increase in the domestic oil production of the US.  The bill was designed to allow lands, that were previously off limits, to be accessed for use in drilling to increase the domestic supply of oil in the US and help brunt some of the increase in costs on the amount per barrel.  Many politicians saw this as a way to help the consumer absorb some of the cost that they were paying at the pump, while others saw this as a “big oil” or  “anti-environmental” movement aimed at furthering the destruction of the planet.  Either way, the end solution would have been an increase in supply on the market which would have been used to help meet the current demand and bring down some of the prices.  So the question is why would politicians, whose job it is to protect the people and help enhance the economy of a given country fight so hard to stop a bill that has the potential to aid the economy, the people, and the world market?

As an American, I am a little disappointed in my elected body.  These people, who most average Americans assume to be educated and out to protect the people they represent, end up protecting the power they gain by becoming elected officials.  In a recent Consumer Reports survey, 77% of Americans believe that the US Congress is to blame for the rise in oil prices.  This survey actually goes against what is being told in the media who tells the American public that “Big Oil, OPEC, and Oil Speculators” are to blame for the rise in cost.  Also according to a Zogby poll, 74% of Americans support the idea of drilling offshore to help increase supply and bring down the price of oil and gas at the pump.  So if an overwhelming majority of citizens in a given country support an idea, then why does the elected body defy them?  In America, Congress is supposed to represent the people that elected them, so where is the representing at?  When your citizens call, write, or email in concerning and demands that Congress do something about the price of oil and you do nothing what does this mean?  How do you justify sitting on your hands and not preparing for a future that is inevitable at this point and time?

Congress will defend its’ actions by saying that they are working to support “alternatives to oil” and that more drilling will only exacerbate the issue.  That any drilling that is done now will not have any effect on the current price of gas and that it will take about 10 years for the new oil produced to have an effect on the market.  So I ask, why not take the measures to make sure that in 10 years we aren’t faced with another oil crisis by increasing oil production in the States.  I will let you in on part of my thinking, which I hardly ever do, but I believe that mother nature and planet earth are important and that we should take care of them.  I believe, however, that we must plan for the future in multiple directions.  Plan for a future that is free from oil dependence, but also plan for a future that will take a while to reach that independence and make sure the people are taken care of until we reach that future that we want.  The world, and especially America, is an impatient animal that wants what it wants now and does not want to wait.  The problem is, is that the technology to make for a “cleaner tomorrow” is still years away and we are instituting policy that is inefficient to take care of the problems that we are facing today.

I watched a movie the other day called Kung Fu Panda.  As kid friendly as it was, there was a deeper meaning hidden inside one line of that movie.  In the movie, the original Kung Fu master told his apprentice that “yesterday was history and tomorrow is a mystery but today is a gift, that is why they call it a present.”  Have we lost sight of the forest for the trees as the old saying goes?  Are we so concerned with a possible future that we cannot and will not see the present?  Inaction is the past, and I am talking decades here, has placed us in the situation that we are in at the present moment.  Our in ability to see a future where the need for energy will soon be outpaced by our need for growth and development.  We try so hard to protect the planet that we are hurting ourselves in the process.  We are the stewards of this planet but we are also inhabitants as well and we must be able to live in the manner that we want to live.  We evolved past the cave man and agrarian stage of our life.  Why should we go back?  Why should I want to go back to a life where “living off the earth” was the best thing I could do when now we are so much better off than we were?  My parents built the home they have and the life that we have on the basis that I would create something much better for me and my kids.  Why should I take all of the hard work and dedication of what they worked to achieve and throw it in their face and tell them that they were wrong and that I do not want better than they had?

In an effort to spur along the conversation for increased drilling, President Bush lifted the executive order stopping drilling off-shore.  This alone does not allow for drilling because Congress has to life the ban, but it places pressure on Congress and the elected officials to do something or take full responsibility for the increase in fuel prices when there were solutions to help with the price increases.  Russia is currently looking into increased off shore drilling in the Arctic and many other countries are starting to drill off-shore more and more.  And now OPEC and other oil producing countries have the ability to affect the market in very negative ways as seen by the recent action of Iran.  The price of oil was starting drop and in what was seen as a show of force by the Iranian military, they launched a rocket showing that they were capable of hurting neighboring countries.  With this action, the Iranian government was able to cause instability in the market because they are a heavy oil producing country.  If they went to war, then oil production would drop and cause price increases.  Their show of force was meaningless because it was old technology, but the show of force was enough to cause oil market to fluctuate and the prices began to increase again.  Until we are free of foreign oil sources they will consistently have a choke hold on the international community.  Domestic oil drilling, whether you are American, European, or from some place else should be a goal so as to free yourself from foreign influence.  Prices will stabilize and the market will not be as volatile as it is now, but concerns over the environment and the need for alternative energy sources cloud our judgement.

Drilling might not be an immediate solution to our problems, but it can help to keep us from having similar problems in the future.  If we can stabilize the supply to meet our current and potential demands then, we have the ability to control our economy and set ourselves up to truly be independent of oil in the future.  Fixing our energy policies and woes is not a single minded act.  It takes many facets to complete this goal and we are arrogant to believe that one way is the only way to solve our problems.  Both sides are so adamant about winning that we are not seeing the harm that the game is causing the players involved.  The coaches are sacrificing players and resources left and right for the “greater good” but who will be there to enjoy the “greater good” if the game is concluded and it ends up in disaster?  Ponder these questions and ask yourself what you can do to help end the madness and find some clarity to the issue of global warming and oil dependency.  The people in most nations are capable of telling their government what they want and how they want it.  The people in America have just become complacent to the idea that the people they elected actually do their jobs on the citizens behalf and not their own personal agenda.  Americans moan and groan about the woes of life and the need for some sort of change but when push comes to shove they do not stand up and force their elected officials to take a stand to do something about it.  Do something about it before it is too late.  Take a stand and demand that your government, no matter where you live, take steps to secure not only your future but your present lifestyle.  If you are not too careful, you might just see that current lifestyle destroyed for a possible future lifestyle that could be impossible to achieve in the end.

In the market oriented world, trade subsidies are supposed to be an advantageous means to protect a country’s ability to produce a good and have a chance to be marketable on the global market.  Thus when one country produces a product at a lower cost and begins exporting it globally, another country has the ability to place an export duty or a trade subsidy on it so that their product meets the price of the same or similar product in that nations market.  Thus, if an African country can produce, say wheat, at a lower cost and ship it worldwide, then Europe would subsidize their farmers and pay them the difference in the market value so that the European farmers could sell their wheat at the same price as the African country.  Thus, the African country loses the battle because their product is no longer as competitive as it was when it was shipped from their ports.  This causes huge market disparities among certain commodities and can keep areas from gaining economic windfalls that it should because it is producing a product at a more affordable price.  So why should the average person care about this issue?  Why should a European farmer fight to make agriculture prices more equal and call for an end or reduction in trade subsidies?  These are questions that we must deal with because in the era of globalization, taking care of the market tends to be lost in our selfish need to protect our own country sometimes.

As a reference I live in a very agriculture oriented area of the United States.  I know what it means to “be a farmer” and what advancements and pitfalls this career and lifestyle brings.  I also know that the age of the “small family farmer” is gone and in the current market situation should not come back.  Producing the amount of crop that is needed to make a substantial living in this world requires a lot of acreage that many if not most small farmers do not own and are incapable of obtaining.  The same can be said for Europe.  Protecting the family farmer is an idea of the past because the age of agrarian farming in the developed West is an idea that has since passed on.  The developing world, in many cases lives and dies on the agriculture that it produces.  They have the society and the land to be able to produce certain crops at a much lower cost and in large quantities.  I do not disavow what a farmer in America goes through in their business life.  I have watched the bank take everything they own because they are overdrawn on their loans and incapable of paying it back.  I have also witnessed large corporate or family conglomerate style farmers win big with the aid of subsidies.  So where does our drive for the almighty dollar end and our desire to help make sure people have enough food to eat begin?  The average person should understand that subsidies are necessary but the amount of the subsidy is never questioned.  Facts show that about Europe subsidizes its farmers about 50% and the US about 35%.  These numbers are huge when compared to the global market and people should understand the frustration of the developing world and their fight with the developed West.  The market is not a “friendly” place.  The market tells people when to invest in areas and when it is best for them to pull out and find other types of business.  Agriculture is not a trade that people study to gain a career in after they attend a university.  Agriculture is an obtained skill from working in this market area from their family or family friends.  Understanding the business side is one thing but understanding when to plant, when to harvest, when to hold the crop for sale, and the such is more intuition and gut instinct.  Most people do not understand this, which is why the family farmer is going to the way side for a conglomeration of families working together to present one large fighting front on the market.  Like with anything, numbers is always better in a battle.

Let’s leave agriculture for a minute and talk about another trade war that has been going on since the early part of the 21st century.  The trade war between Boeing and Airbus.  This trade war has seen the potential rise of one company and fall of another and a battle with an international organization bound to protect the market and the fairness of the system.  The background is muddied by which side of the fence you happen to be on.  If you are American then you are adamantly against the EU having any kind of financial involvement with Airbus, while if you are European then you against the US giving any kind of tax breaks to Boeing.  Now lets take a look at both sides to get a better understanding of what is going on and why this fight will never end.

Let’s start with Airbus since I am currently in Europe.  Airbus, since its fight for global commercial aircraft supremacy, has been largely financed by European member states or the European Commission.  As a European, this does not seem strange because for the most part, governmental bodies and institutions provide aid and support for many of its businesses.  This aid comes in the form of loans, grants, and aid that is “up front” on the financial side of the business.  This means that when Europe provides money to Airbus, Airbus is receiving tax free money upfront for R&D, construction of aircraft, and business operations.  So at the end of the day, they might have to pay some of it back, i.e the loans they took out, but their net gains are not used for reinvestment purposes because the government is subsidizing that reinvestment.  So as a person who supports the free market, you should ask yourself, “why is it that Airbus is incapable or unwilling to use its own profits to reinvest in the designing and building of new aircraft?”  Why is it that it needs the government to give them aid in this manner?

Now let’s deal with Boeing, the other actor in this trade dispute.  Boeing receives several billion dollars in tax breaks, tax incentives, and some in governmental grants.  The first thing that we have to do is understand what this means for Boeing.  Tax breaks are little different than subsidies.  Tax breaks affect the money that is considered profit.  Profit is only achieved through the sale of their product and without sale there is no profit and thus the tax breaks are meaningless.  The US government does not give any upfront aid or support only tax breaks on their financial success.  Boeing has to use its own money to reinvest to create a new plane or create the current model line.  The EU has argued the NASA and the Department of Defense give Boeing billions in aid but this aid is used for the military division of their company, not the commercial division.  This money cannot and should not be used in an argument for the illegality of Boeing on the international market when it comes to trade warfare.  If Boeing received upfront aid and tax breaks then Boeing would be in the wrong and would be at a clear advantage to Airbus.  Thus Airbus would have a solid place to argue from with the WTO.

In a market oriented arena, Airbus has a clear advantage to Boeing because of the money alloted to it by the EU governments and its ability to keep the profit in whole.  If equality is desired then Airbus should give up its upfront financial funding and go to tax breaks and incentives similar to Boeing so that they could compete on the market and allow it to decide which planes are better and which company is the more profitable.  As I stated, this argument is almost mute because the mentality of the the two regions is different because one does not understand the problem with government aid and funding and one does not want the disadvantage of not having the same type of funding base as the other.  Neither side is willing to budge on the issue and the WTO is not an organization that has the clout and backing to force one side or the other to concede its place.  The WTO works in the past reviewing policy and deeming it wrong, not being able to set policy or create policy that would benefit free trade on the international market.  Until the WTO has some kind of power and enforcement model setup it is just an arbiter that listens to disputes and tries to help each side come to an agreement.  And the day for enforceability is a long way off because that would require each side to give up some of its sovereignty which is not likely to happen in my lifetime.

In conclusion, whether agricultural or airplane related, the area of trade subsidies has its good and bad sides.  In the end however, these are only band-aids on the issues and a detriment to the market and its potential to provide a free and lucrative atmosphere for all who chose to join the party.  The market never promises everyone that they will be rich, but an opportunity to become as wealthy as they are capable of at any given time.  The market is not friendly to some and harmful to others but neutral to all.  It provides a clean and level playing field for everyone to start from and it is there that the individual has to be able to make something of their product and sell it to the populace.  It is there that the populace decides whether or not the product is good or bad and can make or break someones dream of success.  Men have entered the arena and succeeded and men have failed, but in the end they have entered as equals and that is the best thing that can be gained from a market economy, true economic equality of conditions.

Looking back over the history of not only the United States, but the history of most of the now modern world, the Great Depression was a defining moment in many people’s lives.  This was a time when the world economy came to a grinding halt for some, or slowed down so significantly that the people were desperate for any means possible to get out of their economic depression.  The evils of capitalism would not and could not allow for the economies of the world to rebound as fast as the people wanted or needed and thus drastic measures were required.  At least that is how the political figures in-charge defined their arguments for such “New Deal” policy and legislation.  The famed creator and promoter of New Deal legislation in the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, believed that a greater presence by the US Federal government was required to get the US economy out of the Great Depression and back on the road to recovery.  Europe, over the years has seen this New Deal legislation as something to model after because it was the national government of a country taking control for the betterment of the country, society, and economy.  So what are the benefits and costs of this new legislation and did it help, hurt, or do nothing for the US’s place in the Great Depression?  Then looking at Europe’s desire to model itself after New Deal type policies, we look at the US and its drives to create a single payer health care system similar to Canada’s, Britain’s, and several in Europe.  Can we and should we market and attempt to model ourselves after policies that have not shown any real success in practice when it comes to market oriented people and economies?  Is the single payer system just a new off shoot of New Deal policies?

The New Deal brought about the new age of Federal government control in the United States.  Franklin Roosevelt campaigned on the initiative of bringing a “new deal to the American people.”  The idea was for the government to take control of the economy and enact legislation and policies to direct the country in the right direction, which was towards recovery and a future without another Great Depression.  Several of these policies included:  banking reform laws, emergency relief programs, work relief programs, and agricultural programs.  These programs were to help give the country a footing to stand on so that it could recover faster than the pace it was before for implementation.  Several bodies created were the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Housing Administration, The Tennessee Valley Authority, and two that are still working today which are the Social Security System and the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In his famous speech, the line President Roosevelt became famous for was borrowed from a book written by Stuart Chase.  The full speech part reads,

“Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth…..I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people.  This is more than a political campaign.  It is a call to arms.”

Now, this sounds like a rally cry to get the people excited at the prospects of getting themselves out of a economic depression that had caused them problems for years now.  But looking at this in the historical context that we have today, as an American I am alarmed by the language used by President Roosevelt.    The line that is most disturbing is the one that speaks of “more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth.”  Channeling the “nation’s wealth” sounds good to those in need, but does it actually benefit them in the long term?  If it does not benefit them, then the next question to ask is were the New Deal policies meant to be permanent or were they meant to be temporary to get the country out of an economic slump in a shorter period of time than the market was showing it would get it out of?  If this is true, then should other governments and people model their system after New Deal policies?  The Social Security System is the US version of the welfare state set to provide assistance to the elderly, the handicap,  unemployment insurance, universal retirement pensions, and welfare benefits for the poor.  Roosevelt was quoted as saying that , “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits.  With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”  Many advocated that the social security program should be paid for out of the general fund, but his argument was that if people pay in they have an investment to look forward to later on.  What he did not and many did not see is that the system was never meant to handle such a large load as we have now.  Currently the average person pays in to support more than just one person and by the time I am old enough to collect on my Social Security, there will not actually be enough in there to receive my full benefits because the system will be so far in the red.  So why support a system that should have been temporary?  Was it because it was a political scheme that Roosevelt saw as necessary for the people of that time but did not look far enough into the future?  Was it because Roosevelt found an idea that worked and was a pet project for him that he did not want to see it destroyed by a politician while he was in office?  We will never know, but the fact of the matter is that the Social Security System puts a large strain on the US economy every year adding in more payroll taxes and taking more money from the average tax payer to support people who cannot support themselves in an effort to redistribute the wealth in America.  The progressive taxes are setup to “protect” the lower income earners in the country, but this means that higher income earners are forced to pay a disproportionate share of the expense which means that individuals and companies are forced to pay extra expenses that would normally not be incurred in a flat tax system where taxes are equitable and force responsibility.

The New Deal was an advantageous scheme to help the people out in a  immediate fashion, but was that necessarily the right move to make?  Would it have been better for the people to find their own way out of the depression and come out stronger and more dependent of themselves instead of the government?  World War II was ultimately what turned the country around and create the United States that would be a super power in the world with only on rival for decades.  The New Deal, while it was working to create much needed jobs, and streamline laws that were inefficient, also created a bureaucracy that was unparalleled in US history.  The US had never placed this much trust or power in the affairs of the National government, relying more on State governments to take of many of the citizens needs.  In the end, the federal government latched onto its newly acquired power and has not let go since this time.  So from the social security system to a single payer healthcare system should not be that much a stretch right?

Many in Europe and across the world adopted similar pieces of legislation and policies like the New Deal in an attempt to get their country out of the effects of the Great Depression.  Thus, socialism in Europe began its hold and many countries took these idea much further than Roosevelt imagined.  The single payer healthcare system, like the system in Canada, is a source of contention in the US but a given part of life in parts of Europe.  Many in Europe see it as the governments duty to provide for the people and to make sure that all people are taken care of with equal access and performance from the system.  In the more market oriented US, the government does help out in the same manner but relies on the private insurance  companies to provide aid to those in need of medical care.  Individuals purchase or are provided by an employer healthcare insurance so that they can see the doctor at a reduced rate from what would be considered the market value of a visit.  In Canada, an individual and their employer pay into a centrally located fund which is then used to pay the hospital, staff, etc to provide citizens with healthcare no matter their income, age, illness, etc.  While this sounds nice, one of the draw backs is that even though you are allowed to see any doctor anywhere, waits to see the doctor can be long.  In a recent conversation with a Canada citizen, I learned that she had to wait 3 months to see a specialist to run tests.  After the test were ran she has to wait another 3 months to get to see him so he can tell her what the test results are in her case.  Now I will say, for those that are alarmed by this, that this is for elective  or optional visits.  Emergency care is not part of the “waiting” lines in general.  Now like in the US, if you enter an emergency room you still have to wait based on the seriousness of your issue but you do not have to wait months to see a doctor.  This same wait time works for prescription drugs as well.  You might have to wait in line all day to get your medicines.  The idea here is that even though you are covered for anything, no matter your condition, being able to see a doctor when you have the cold is impossible in most instances because it is not an “emergency situation.”

Also, when the government doles the money out to the doctors and hospitals the government has to ability to tell the doctors was is “medically necessary” is what they are giving them money for their practice.  So that means that if the government deems something is not medically necessary then your universal healthcare insurance does not cover it.  And in most cases, a single payer healthcare system does not allow for private healthcare insurance coverage because it makes the system ineffective.  So if it is not covered, you have no other fight except if the doctors fight to get that condition deemed coverable by the government.  So the idea that a universal healthcare system would do away with “pre-existing conditions” is not necessarily true in the total sense of the word.  Yes, people with pre-existing conditions will be covered, but other people that are covered with private insurance could end up without coverage because it was deemed medically unnecessary.  Something to consider when people place this argument at your feet for consideration.  In Germany, their healthcare system is setup so that the money that is paid in by its citizens is immediately used to pay for someone’s healthcare needs.  Thus, the system does not have a fund to support it for future needs.  All the money is dependent upon what people pay into the system so for the system to be efficient and prepare for a population that is increasing daily, then several things have to be completed.  Either taxes have to be increased so that more money is put into the system,  the floor for which people are allowed to purchase their own private insurance must be increased so that more people are paying into the system, or more government subsidization.  If the floor is increased, then the ability for the population to have some free will in the choice is limited and at some point for the system to continue as planned the floor will have to disappear and the private healthcare system will be eliminated all together.  The system is somewhat efficient at the present time, but in the future the system will fail to provide the healthcare benefits people currently receive.

There is not a single system that is perfect because utopia is an unachievable goal.  The best you can do is create a system where people have an equal opportunity to acquire assistance and when push comes to shove if you are not covered people can receive the medical aid the need to live.  But you should not reward people for not being able to provide for themselves when they have the means to support themselves.  Do not get me wrong, there truly are people that cannot afford insurance but there are organizations and ways for them to receive help but no one ever tells them this.  They just tell them that since they have no insurance they cannot receive medical aid because they do not have the money to pay for it.  Many private hospitals have funds and means to help those in true need make extended payment plans or completely write off their debt because they know it is better for them to do this than fight to get pennies from people that will not be able to pay in in the first place.  There are those however that abuse the system when they are capable of paying for insurance because they use their money inappropriately when setting up their budget.  Should a society reward such action or force them to take responsibility for their actions?  And why is responsibility such a bad thing when it comes to people’s decisions in life?

Like the New Deal, a single payer system is great in theory and provides for the masses but does not prepare for a future where the government is incapable of paying for the system or the people are incapable of being taxed enough to pay for the populous of their country.  More important issues at hand should be concerned with tort laws in the US, with reducing cost of medical malpractice insurance, using more market incentives to make insurance cheaper and more affordable with tax incentives.  Lowering doctor costs would allow for the price of visits, surgeries, and hospital stays to be decreased, which in turn would decrease costs on medical insurance and would make it more affordable.  Little things and changes in the current system could have a trickle affect that would be felt by everyone, but we are like work horses with blinders on with only a destination in sight.  We end up missing the forest for the trees and miss other alternatives because we see examples from around the world and forget we are just an innovative as they are.  We also forget that there are circumstances in that country that allows them the ability to have a system like they do.  In Europe, most of their defense is subsidized by the American government and NATO.  If each European country was forced to protect itself to the fashion that the US and NATO protects them, than that money that typically goes to their healthcare system would not be there, same with Canada.  The US is in essence subsidizing their healthcare at the detriment of our own so why now make changes in our own system that is sufficient for us instead of using Europe and Canada as a model when they are not the perfect model.

In conclusion, healthcare is something that every society should strive to provide for its populous and citizenry but the methods in which this system is employed is still in question.  Whether it is provided by a private source or from a public entity is still in debate.  Each country, each system has its own merits but understanding what is appropriate for each situation and each people is important.  As stated before, no system is perfect but understanding the differences between the systems of private and publicly funded healthcare could potentially show us a system that is far better than what either of us have at the present time.  This should be the goal of both communities in an effort to make the world a better place for all people.  As much as America and Europe look to each other for policies and principles on how to govern themselves, they should learn from each other instead of fighting for their positions.  The question then is, what generation will learn this lesson and begin to learn from each other?  When will we get past our arrogance and egos and create something better than either of us have at the moment?  That is a world worth working towards and fighting for, at least in my opinion.

Yo, I am the Gore-Ax, who speaks for the trees
 I speak for the Earth and she wants to say “Please!”
 ”Address global warming as soon as you can.”
 ”The sun cannot cause it. The culprit is man.”
 Oh Gaea, so fragile, she can’t take the heat
 A few more degrees and the Earth is dead meat
 From choking on carbon emissions, you hear?
 More threat’ning than any munitions you fear
 Your minivans, Hummers, immense S.U.V.s
 Are wreaking great havoc on Earth and her trees
 And muscle car drivers, you ruin the air
 So switch to a Prius to show that you care
 Or better yet, travel by bus or by train
 And then my new limo can have a clear lane

 For I am the Gore-Ax, who speaks for the trees
 I’ll speak for the Earth until everyone sees
 The danger that climate change poses to all
 Especially if suburbs continue to sprawl
 We must limit suburbs if we’re to defer
 The global catastrophe soon to occur
 If glaciers keep melting, the oceans will rise
 And polar bears surely will meet their demise
 My house in the Hamptons, right there by the shore
 Will be underwater if Earth heats up more
 When oceans get warmer, more hurricanes form
 My house in the Hamptons might fall in a storm
 It’s Earth in the balance.  Am I getting through?
 Do all that you can to reduce CO2

 Now, I am the Gore-Ax, who speaks for the trees
 When saving the Earth I refuse to appease
 You stubborn deniers who won’t see the light
 We have a consensus that says that I’m right
 You shill for big oil and guzzle gas, too
 It’s time for a carbon tax levied on you
 The planet’s in peril, so cut back or pay
 Your country should bow to Kyoto today
 I know it’s not easy, but what can you do?
 A truth inconvenient is nonetheless true
 I’ve so much to teach you, but must say goodbye
 My Gulfstream is waiting. It’s time that I fly
 To Hollywood, Davos and maybe to Cannes
 So limit your energy use when I’m gone

In a world that is ever changing and in a time where providing for your nation is tantamount to the survival of your people and society, we need to have a better understanding of the governmental regimes that are at play in our world.  From dictatorships to monarchies, democracies to socialist regimes, countries around the world are creating a future for themselves in which government has an important role and place in their society.  Some societies feel that government should be the “be all and end all” of their world and provide for it, everything they need to live the best life possible.  Others believe that the people should decide how they live their lives and that government should be there to provide stabilization and a governing force to protect their basic needs and tenants. Then there are those nations that fall somewhere in the middle.  Which nation you are and how you see the world greatly depends on the history of your people, the culture you live in, and the drive each person has in their quest to live their lives.  Which set of conditions do you fall under?  Can you identify how your government treats you and if this is a good or bad thing?  How do you view government and what role should it have in your life?  These are questions that a person should ask themselves to better understand the government under which they live and if they should do anything to make a change in the governing force that surrounds them.

So, as a lesson to our English speaking friends in America I present to you the Die Linke.  Die Linke is a German political party that means “The Left.”  You can visit their website at  (http://die-linke.de/) so you can better grasp who they are and what they stand for but I picked a topic off their news headlines because it has special significance to the American people.  An article entitled, “NATO in Defensive,” reads to say that the Europeans, especially the Germans, should look very carefully with the role that NATO plays in their lives.  The author states that with the upcoming expansion of NATO into “Former Eastern Bloc” countries, the safety of Europe is diminishing daily.   He finishes the article by saying that current NATO policy would divide Europe and that on the occasion of the 60th birthday of NATO, Europe should hold a referendum to allow the withdrawal of membership from NATO by any member country.  Concerning NATO involvement in Europe, they have two options under their belt if they follow through with such a referendum.

The first option is that they can all vote against membership in NATO and dissolve the overarching military defensive alliance with the US.  This option is a precarious one because the implications are great for both sides. The US provides the majority of the defensive military options for Europe in case of an attack on the European continent.  This allows many, if not all, of the European countries to devote billions of dollars that would go towards defense to other areas of their economy.  As an example, according to some statistics, France contributes about 50% of its GDP to its social programs.  We bless them with economic spending of our own because we are living and working in their countries.  Economically and strategically it is a win for both sides.  If Europe is forced to militarize itself, the economic ramifications could be severe, especially on countries that have devoted their spending to government run programs and institutions for the public.

As a second option, Europe could vote to stay in NATO and continue the dealings they have had for 60 years.  Europe would be provided with the regional security that they have enjoyed for years and they could continue to bolster their economy in a fashion that allows them the social justices and needs that they garner so highly.  This would allow Europe to solidify the European Constitution and finally create the economic and political institutions that they have been working so steadily towards for years now.  Europe could say that without NATO, they would not have the economic stability and way of life that they have now.

Now that you have a simple understanding of the issue with NATO let us discuss the Die Linke.  Now, the Die Linke, also promotes the ban on arms sales and even a ban on arms manufacturing in Germany.  In the long run what this means is that the German people and country would have to depend on NATO solely, unless it withdrew and then it would have to arm itself.  Do you see the hypocrisy here?  Die Linke wants to de-arm and withdraw from NATO.  In essence, they want to have their cake and eat it to in terms of compete governmental control of the people in matters of defense.  The German people would be defenseless because of a lack of military forces and they would not have the defensive pact with NATO to provide additional aid unless special agreements were made during their time of need.  Now lets discuss the Die Linke in a little more detail.

Die Linke, is a socialist political party that believes in full government participation in the lives of individual citizens.  They, in some parts, see themselves as the former SED.  In essence, this political party believes that the State is more and better equipped to provide for the people than the people themselves.  The idea that the State is better capable than the individual is foreign to most in the American society.  I, an American, was taught that we are a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  So, in the light of a nations leaning towards a socialistic regime, I press you to get educated on what is going on outside the borders of America or wherever you reside and look past the television news and read and understand the understated issues and places.  Even in Germany, a democracy, there is a push for a more centralized and socialized government.  People know of Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc and how the extent to which the government controls and has an enormous amount of say in the daily lives of its citizens.  Would you ever have thought to put a German political party in the same boat as Cuba or China?  In a video attached to this article, you get an idea of what the Die Linke think and how they view the world.  One of the most interesting parts of the video introduces us to their role models for a good government and ruling political party.  These role models include, The Worker’s Party of Brazil, the Unity Party or the National Liberation of Indonesia, and the Communist Party of Cuba.  If these are their role models, how can any person in a free society support them?  How can a political party that is bent on government controlling every aspect of an individuals life gain in ground in a place that is supposed to be “democratic?”

These are questions that the logical person should ask themselves and the people around them.  What we need to do is show our support for the people in the world that are fighting against these regimes.  Show our support for the opposition parties in countries that are dominated by socialist political parties.  Understand, that this concept of thinking is spreading to democracies around the world and that if we do not take a stand now, it will only get worse.  As an American I am scared and worried by the video presented.  I am shocked sometimes, that things like this video exist because you only expect to see them in old propaganda reels from the 1950’s and 60’s.  As a note this video is representative of a convention in 2007.  So this way of thinking is not something that is decades old, it is very recent which is why the need for concern is warranted.

I am writing to not only to Americans but also for those English speaking Germans, I say that the street of understanding runs both ways.  What most Germans do not understand is that for Americans, we have a strict set of social laws and mores with a lot of economic and political freedoms, while they have a plethora of social freedoms and limited economic and political freedoms.  How is this possible in a country that is supposed to be a “democracy” in our international community?  I believe it is the American’s foundation and founding that separates them from Europe.  America was created by individuals who came together under free association to create government.  Europe has had established government in one form or another for centuries.  There was never a time where the people had the opportunity to create the same sense of free association that we were granted.  This opportunity, for instance, many Americans take for granted and in some foreign countries is seen as part of American arrogance.

In conclusion, the people of America and the international community should aid and support those that are working to fight unjust political regimes, socialism, and communism.  America needs to show its support to the foundations and agencies around the world that are fighting the Die Linke’s so that their influence will not spread and so that the people in those countries can see that there is a better choice for them when it comes to governmental choice.  Choice is the key word in that last sentence and Americans take this idea choice for granted as an inalienable right and the international community believes that it is not a right but something given to them.  We both must learn that the right of choice, of free choice and association, is something that is inherent to us all and we must be brave, strong, and insistent enough to take that right as part of the individual in us all not as part of a group giving us this power.  As much as I want to learn from other people from around the world I hope that I can teach those same people a little of what I know.  We both have something to teach and it is in the best interest of both parties to learn so to make the world a better place.  In essence, learning from the past, to live in the present, and plan for the future should be our goal as a society in a free world.

By:  Jonathan Hessling

Here is the aforementioned video:

Visit us at http://www.iuf-berlin.org/comments/2327.php

Today I received an email providing me with a link to a website from a broadcasting company in Australia known as ABC.  I clicked on the link and to my surprise I was not sent to the website to learn about the news or to read a story that would be pertinent to my life or enrich my experience as a human being but to a website about “my CO2 influence on global warming.”  Now, first off, I want you to understand that I was surprised that something like this existed.  Secondly, I was shocked that they were portraying this as some kind of “scientific” measure of my contribution to global warming.  The debate over what causes global warming is still raging, whether people choose to believe this or not.  So why do these websites exist in the first place?  What is their true purpose, and why do people take them as “intelligent pieces of equipment” capable of giving us a true indicator of what is really going on in the world.

As skeptical as I am, I decided to take the test and see exactly what scientific questions they were asking me so that I could get a better understanding of how they were measuring my contribution to global warming.  There are a series of eleven questions that you are to answer.  I will go through them all so that you can see what questions were asked for yourself and at the end I will give you the website so that you can take the quiz yourself.

Question 1:  How do you usually get around?  Your possible answers were:  Car (heavy, moderate, and light user), motorbike, taxi, bus or train, and walking/bicycle.  Question 2:  Is the car you normally drive…..?  Your possible answers are:  Fuel guzzler, average, fuel miser, I don’t usually take my car.  Question 3:  How far did you fly in the last year?  You possible answers are:  0 km(this was supposedly the Average), Under 5000 km, 5K to 10K km, 10K to 20K km, 20K to 40K km,  over 40K km.  Then they wanted you to give an estimate of how much was for work.  Question 4:  What size of a place do you live in?  Possible answers are:  A small house, a medium house(this was the average), a large house, a flat.  Question 5:  How many people do you share with?  Possible answers are:  none, 1, 2, 3 (which was average), 4, more than 4.  Question 6:  For your household size, how big are your energy bills?  Possible answers are:  Low, typical (the average), and over the top.

Question 7:  Is your electricity from a renewable source (hydro or a green scheme)?  The possible answers are:  Yes, no (average), and partly.  Question 8:  Do you recycle your waste and compost organic and green waste?  Possible answers are:  Yes, no, and sometimes (this was the average).  Question 9:  How often do you eat meat?  A helluva lot (which is their wording),  A lot, an average amount, most days, A few times a week, rarely, never.  Question 10:  How much money did you spend last year?  Possible answers are:  Less than 10K, 10 to 25K (the average), 25 to 40K, 40 to 55K, 55 to 70K, 70 to 100K, and over 100K.  Question 11:  Of the amount of money spent last year how much was spent on?  (you are supposed to use a slide bar and determine the percent based of three possible choices.  The choices are:  Ordinary Stuff which includes eating, going out, drinking, clothes, car, rent, etc., Stuff that’s better for the environment which includes energy or fuel efficient things, organic foods, and second or recycled items, and lastly Ethical investments which includes investing in businesses/organizations that make environmentally responsible products.  After you had answered all the questions; the program calculates the age at which you will die, yes you read this right, the age at which you will die because you abused the planet too much.  I had supposedly used up my share of the environment at age 8.5.

So apparently I am supposed to be dead which is kind of confusing but apparently since this is scientific, I am supposed to worry that I am ruining things for a future generation.  Here is the link to the website so that you can take the quiz:     http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm  I will warn you that there is a chance that by the time some of you read this article the website will be taken down, but for those that get to take the quiz I hope you learn something from it, so lets discuss what we learned.

Now as you read most of the questions, you probably think that some of them are logical questions to be asked.  Take questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 for example.  All of these questions are basically asking us what our consumption of energy sources are that we use on a daily basis.  Now the other questions are supposed to garner more information based off the predetermined concepts taken from the questions I listed in the previous sentence.  How much we spend a year, how many people live in a household, do we recycle, what do we spend our money on, etc.  What do you think when you read these questions?  Do you feel that they are substantial questions and will garner some kind of truth or do these questions not serve a purpose in the overall scheme of things?  How do you feel when you take the quiz and see your results?  Do you feel sad, angry, guilty, confused, worried?  I try not to tell people my own feelings about things in articles like this because it taints the piece but in this case I am breaking my rule.  I was angry at this website.  Why you ask, because in an age where we have a plethera of information at our finger tips, people still think that we are too stupid to learn for ourselves.  We are supposed to take websites like this one for granted and concede that because they are “scientific” in their construction and their questioning that we will not try to find out if they are telling the truth.

This is scare tactics from the media and from a group bent on making people feel guilty about the way they live their lives, how they spend their money, and how their worldview is not the gospel and accepted by all in this world.  The questions about how much we make and what we spend our money on is really none of their business and does not address the scientific problems of global warming and where it comes from.  We, for the most part, live in a market society that strives itself on the consumption of goods and services provided by the best business or organization out there.  If an organization is not providing an adequate service then a new organization can and will replace them.  Why do we jump to blame ourselves for not living “the right way of life” and who has the right to tell us that we are not living that life already?  Why do we feel guilty of living the best possible life we can?  Why do we not see other possibilities for the causes of global warming?

In the end people, it is us that keep this scientific scare game going because we play into the idea that they are smarter than we are so they are supposed to know better and lead us in the “right” direction.  But the question that we should be asking is this “right” direction, their direction or is it the direction that will create a better world and future for us?  I learned in grammar school that on tests when you have a true or false question that when the statement is a definite answer that nine times our of ten it will be false.  Why you ask?  Because for the most part nothing is completely certain and it is all in the phrasing of the question.  So when the media, scientists, and “intellectual” individuals tell us that the sole reason for global warming is mankind’s use of carbon why do we not scream out  FALSE?  Why do we not cry wolf and question the people that are “smarter” than we are?  We are not stupid people and we have to realize this.  Policies, legislation, and environmental litigation is causing a detriment to society’s economic venture that can be calculated and should be considered by everyone.  You should understand, as an individual in society, that your way of life is going to change in dramatic ways because of the proposed and possibly current climate policy.  In the US right now, the climate bill in Congress is set to increases taxes in a tremendous fashion.  With this bill they plan on increasing the fuel tax over the next ten years to try and offset some of the effects of “man-made” global warming.  What does this mean for the consumer?  Well obviously an increase in the price per gallon at the pump, but also an increase in prices of products consumed by the public, jobless rate increases beyond the levels that we currently have, and probably several industries going out of business because they cannot afford the new costs being placed on them.

Why do we want to hurt ourselves, our economy, and our way of life when there is no hard evidence that mankind is the sole contributor to global warming?  Come on people, get out their and question the authorities, the Congressman, and the media and force them to tell you why this is a good thing and make them show their findings to you.  Do not take their word as gospel, being citizens like in the day of the founding of America and question what is going on around.  We are not the stupid masses incapable of making our own choices, we are just lazy and think that there are people smarter than us out there that are more capable.  Believe in yourself and the people around you to try to create a life that is beneficial to all people because in the end this world is all we have and we are not going to destroy it.

I would love to have been there during the days of the founding of the United States and seen what the men were thinking when they defied a nation, created a new one, and founded it on the principle that men are more important than government.  We are the government and without us a government cannot and will not exist.  The debate of whether global warming exists is not the current debate, but it is over whether man is the sole cause of this warming.  If there are other causes then how much does man contribute and if us changing our ways in such radical fashions is going to have the affect that we would like for it to have.  I have faith in man-kind to create a world that is better for us all, but I also believe that mother nature is not in our power to control and that there are things that we still do not understand about what she is truly capable of in this universe that we call home.  Believe in each other and believe in yourself to find the answers to the questions that are asked and do not let someone else do the work that drastically affects your way of life and how you lead it.

In our ever changing world, the idea of policy and politics tends to have a powerful and often times contentious meaning.  People see politics as a necessary evil in their day to day lives and for the most part completely forget the policy behind the politics.  In some cases, and more than most of us would like to think, we combine the world of politics and policy and blur the lines of what they truly are and represent.

Politics, as many of us know, is the part of our governmental system where men and women vie for the acceptance and votes of the nation or the constituents in their respective districts.  Policy on the other hand is what the elected politicians, analysts, and administrators are supposed to accomplish on a day to day basis as part of their jobs.  The world of politics and political science diverges at this point but most people do not and will not see this divergence.  The world of policy is a complex world of research, writing, arguing, and hopefully reaching some kind of consensus on a given issue.  In the most general of terms, the policy world helps to create and write the legislation that parliaments, congresses, and other elected bodies vote on during the course of their elected terms.  Politics, is the part that muddles through the policy and they help decide what is appropriate for the people and they are a form of check and balance to the policy created daily.

Political scientists study the governmental systems created by man and the processes that work towards the creation of the policy that will one day become law.  Political scientists do not study politics or politicians as a whole because these people and situations are transitory while governmental bodies or systems last a significantly longer period of time.  As a trade, I am a policy analyst that works in the political world.  I help write and create policy that could one day become a piece of legislation and then a law.

If you ask the average person about the difference between politics and political science/policy most will not be able to offer a difference between the two.  As a citizen, I am shown through the news and the daily actions of my government that there is not much of a difference between policy and politics.  It is not until you actually study what political science is or are present in the world of political science or policy that you gain a better understanding of what actually goes on in our governmental world.  The average citizen understands that they vote for and elect an official that will represent them in some form or fashion in their given government.  What this citizen does not understand is that there is a staff that supports this elected official in capacities far above and beyond what is normally associated with “politics.”  These staff members work to research, craft, and write pieces of legislation in hopes that they will become law.  Policy professionals spend their days either writing new policy or reviewing and editing the current policy on the books.  These legislative aides provide the backbone of the government while the politicians provide the face to the government.  In essence, the aides are the policy while the politicians are the politics.  Both are essential but both are situated in different worlds and do not pretend to enter into each others worlds until necessary.
As a further example, in the executive branch of government, policy analysts, public administrators, and political scientists craft new policy, implement current policy, and study the effects of pat policy.  This branch’s job is to work towards an efficient and productive system of implementation and enforcement of laws passed by the legislature.  Without the policy analysts, this branch would never understand the reasoning behind the success or failure of a given piece of legislation.  Implementation and enforcement are only one step in the governmental process for the executive branch.

Understanding the outcomes of a given policy allows for the feed back and enhancement of the current and future policies on a given issue.  Thus, political science at its core is a science that allows an individual to see the possible outcomes or actual outcomes based on theory or working concepts.  A political scientist studies the results of these tests and based on these results can give basing for new policy for themselves or others to use when crafting new pieces of legislation.  This process is in some cases a long and complicated dance of mathematics, theory, and life experience that either occurred somewhere in the past, is occurring now in the present, or could possibly occur in the future.  This process can show a person possible outcomes or why things occurred the way they did when a piece of policy or legislation failed to achieve its perceived goals.  As an ordinary citizen, we see only the results of this research and we only hear about the conclusions made by these political scientists.  The face of this information is the politician who stands before a group of people either in person, on television, or in print media and exclaims the information as they see fit.  So, it is not a stretch to understand why people do not understand the difference because they do not perceive the differences.  Politicians do not want the citizenry to see these differences because they would lose face  because they would look less competent in their job. The political scientist’s main focus is on the outcome of their research and how it will affect the people, not how the people will react to the legislation.  In the end, they have no stake in the constituency as a whole but how it will affect the individual on a pragmatic basis.

What people need and should understand is that the world of government and politics is an intense game of who can sell a product better and more efficiently.  This product is not created by the politician but by the policy analyst or political scientist who has spent a large amount of time and effort researching and writing on one given issue.  So as an example, say the President’s advisors are telling him/her that there should be tax cuts across the board because it could stimulate the economy and stifle a possible recession.  What his advisors are telling him is that the policy that political scientists and policy analysts have researched and written about is essential to the nation.  This policy is an idea that they think should be made into legislative law so that the policy has the power to affect change.  Now when the President addresses the people of a given nation, he never makes mention of this policy idea because he knows that the there is no way that he could get it through the politicians in office in the legislative body.  Thus the policy and political world meet eye to eye and come into combat.  What the people see is that politics once again either aided or hindered their day to day life.  Thus they think that the policy and political world are one in the same because they only see the legislative body unwilling to give them the tax cuts and the President unable to persuade the legislative body to do what he would like.  The “man behind the curtain” is once again thwarted by politics not because of policy.  This dance happens on a daily basis on a myriad of issues from the mundane to the sensational.  People need to understand that the best way to get the policy they need and/or want is to demand their legislative body work to create or allow the passage of the policy when it reaches their desks.

So far we have discussed how governmental individuals affect the politics and policy that shape the day to day lives of individual citizens.  However, one must not forget that there are private organizations that do play the political and policy game as well.  They also help to blur the lines because even for institutions that there sole purpose is the promotion of effective and pertinent policy, sometimes forget the differences.

Think tanks have their own strategy on how to play the politics vs. policy game.  Think tanks are designed to be research work horses ran by policy analysts and political scientists.  As discussed in previous sections, these are supposed to work in conjunction with but never in the same boat as politics.  They are supposed to push the conversation of policy along for the individual and government officials and aid them in the promotion of beneficial policy that can become legislation.  Sometimes however, these organizations become politically motivated in a way that transforms their purpose from aiding the citizen to becoming a hinderance for them.  They tend to work towards their own agendas, which in essence makes them similar to the politician that does not practice policy but politics.  Why does this happen to an organization that was built specifically for policy purposes?  The best answer is that power plays a key part just like power plays a part with what influences most politicians.  Think tanks, like politicians need to understand that they have a purpose.  Their purpose is to give prudence and reason to subjects in a manner that the citizenry might not have the expertise to provide for themselves on policy issues.  Think tanks should push the conversation forward and make a substantive contribution to the issue not enter the political game and muddy up the conversation with selfish ideas and longings.  These organizations should be apolitical and support the agenda or policy of choice not the politics that drives most policies and choices.  Think tanks are an essential part of the policy process but more times than not, the policy process is lost to the political process.  At that point the think tank loses its purpose and only hinders the promotion of beneficial and effective policy for the citizens of a given country.

In conclusion, the policy world could benefit from the public at large having a better understanding of what their function is in government and how a politician can aid or hinder their job.  Once people understand the differences in the roles that each of the actors plays in their lives they can become better equipped to affect change in the government, policy, and the direction in which it is tending.  This makes the populous stronger because they have a substantive stake or investment in their government and what actions their government is undertaking.  People should always remember that they are the government and that the government would no exist without the people giving it the power to exist.  This is the key to a working, effective, and sustaining democracy in the world.

By:  Jonathan Hessling

The world today is driven by empirical data, scientific findings, and quantifiable results that are supposed to lead us to a greater understanding of the world around us and point us in a direction that will greatly benefit us.  However, somewhere along the way, scientific findings trumped pragmatic thinking and common sense ideology that ran the world for centuries.  Why are we predisposed to disregard common sense logic?  Can things truly be scientific in their global implementation, especially on issues that have subjective sectors to the issues?  And lastly, why is it that we have this “your way or the highway” mentality when it comes to certain issues?  Can we not find some form of moderation or middle ground where both sides can be used to the greater advancement of mankind?  These are questions that are present in the minds of true policy researchers and analysts in their goal and determination to find an effective solution to global warming.

Global warming is a hot topic amongst both the scientific community and the political spectrum.  Like anything that garners political support or fervor, a logical person must gain as much knowledge about the issue to better understand the actions that should be taken and the consequences to those actions.  In the world of global warming, you have two very outspoken camps.  The first proclaims that man is causing a global temperature increase that will cause substantial and irrevocable damage to the earth and will end up causing millions of death and the possible destruction of the planet as we know it now.  The second proclaims the exact opposite.  This side states that man is not responsible for the increase in global temperature and that the warming, if any, is caused by nature herself, cosmic events, or is cyclical and should be taken in a context that is more historical than caused by man.  I posit a question that what if this is a cyclical event that does happen?  What if we are in a place where the earth is closer to the sun, or natural events have caused an increase in carbon emissions above what has previously been recorded, but man kind is not helping the situation because of our industrialization of the planet with the current economic conditions?  The object should not be whether or not one side is the true destroyer of the planet but how we can be better stewards of the planet that we live on and the only home we know.  If you believe in the Bible, then you believe God gave us this planet to be stewards of her and to take care of the plants, animals, and in totality the life that exists here.  If you do not believe the Bible, then common sense, moral choice, or logic should drive you to the conclusion that destroying where you live does not benefit anyone.  Now we take into consideration the current atmosphere of the climate debate and let us see where we are tending to get a better understanding of why people react the way they do and the possible implications of what this means for us, our children, and our children’s children.

We are given to fear antics to help garner support for causes no matter what they are or how unpopular they can be.  Former Vice-President Al Gore has spent the better part of his time since losing the election in 2000 to campaign on global climate change policies.  He has even won a Nobel Prize for his work in the field, but what most people seem willing and able to over look is that he is not a scientist nor has he ever been one or worked in the field.  He is a career politician with high political ambitions and a need for a niche in the world’s eye.  His movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was supposed to enlighten the world to the harm that mankind is doing to the environment with science backing, but the scientific backing seemed a little sparse for such a scientific movie.  As a public service announcement, it did its jobs to start the conversation but as a scientific piece that introduced real findings it seemed to lack in the essential elements.  People have since then come out in opposition to the findings and even Czech President  Vaclav Klaus openly requested to debate Al Gore on the issues to which Al Gore has not responded and is unwilling or unable to meet President Klaus’s request.  Reports of scientists being “discouraged” from speaking out against global climate change policy is starting to increase because of funding issues, loss of face in the scientific community, and the overall end to their career as a reputable scientist.  What does this sound or should this sound like to the average person?  It sounds like freedom of speech, expression of ideas, and an open scientific community is being destroyed by a political machine destined to “win the day” for its cause.  So the debate continues and we are lead to the next place in the global warming discussion/debate.

The environmentalist, scientists, and many politicians are fighting to introduce people to a problem that “will irrevocably change the landscape of the planet and destroy future generations.”  Britain is a leading supporter of global climate change policy and their most recent idea is a “carbon ration card” that each individual would carry with them so that they can make purchases.  These purchases include:  gasoline, air travel, electricity, and other oil products.  This card gives each individual a pre-determined amount of carbon credits that they use to make these purchases and when and if they run out they would have to buy more credits from other card holders who do not use all of their credits.  Let us break this down because this idea is not an old idea but something that has been reinvented for individual purposes.  The Kyoto Protocols have a similar formula for nations.  Nations are given carbon limits that they must meet.  If they go over their carbon limit, they have to “purchase” more carbon sinks from other countries that do not use all of their carbon credits.  Now understand that these carbon credits are only for the developed or industrialized nations of the world.  The countries considered developing or undeveloped are included in this group and are not subject to the same set of restrictions.  So using both examples this means that an economy must be able to meet these new restrictions and if it cannot then it must being willing and able to pay to operate in the new economic setting.  If it is unwilling or unable to play ball in this new setting then it is essentially forces out of the economic market and lost forever to the market place graveyard.  So my question is, “how is this economically beneficial to a country, society, or economy and it’s ability to provide the best living conditions it can for the people who live and work is this economy?”  Saving the environment is an admirable goal and one we should all have but doing it at the expense of the economy and the people that live in this environment is not only detrimental to them but illogical to the future of the people and the nation in question.  What it seems is that as noble as climate change policy is, politicians have found a way to create a new power base for themselves, their political party, and the people that surround them.  Power, above all things, is the one thing that government, people in government, and the people who influence government can never have quenched.  The next thing that comes with this power is the pocket book or the purse.  Government has a new tax base that they can pull from to use to invest in programs that are inefficient and in the end create more bureaucracy than is essential for the daily living of the normal citizen.

Another example is, that in the US, the current climate change legislation looks to be dead in the water because of a split in the support the legislation in the US Senate.  Companies, who are economic animals at their core, do not see the advantages to the legislation because in a time when economic reform is needed most politicians are promoting huge tax increases masking them in the cover of “saving the world” and “ending global climate change.”  People everywhere need to take a good look at what scientists, politicians, and policy experts are saying on the issue.  They need to understand that current legislation in most major developed nations is set to increase taxes in a significant manner in an attempt to solve global warming, but are these measures actually doing what they forecast?  Does the current set of legislation actually solve, or set out to solve global warming or is it just a band-aid that will only hurt the pocket book of the individual?  And the question that is never asked is, “if people understand that this is a tax, why are they so complacent to not fight this?”  As an American, the idea of increased taxes for an idea of ideology that is not essential to the benefit of my society or nation is something that should be challenged.  Which is why I do not understand people like in Britain that do not fight against global warming legislation like carbon ration cards and carbon caps on the industry in an economy.

In the debate of global warming, whether global warming is or is not happening is not the issue.  The real issue is the cause for global warming and the most expedient measures to solve the global warming issues.  At this point the only loud voices in this debate are those at the poles of the issue.  At one end you are either enlightened because you want to save the planet and believe that we should do whatever it takes to save it and in a radical manner because we are in imminent danger.  On the other end of the issue are those that do not see global warming as a threat to their life, the future of the people, or the future of the planet.  They believe that any attempts to curb “global warming” in the manner that is currently on the books will have such a detrimental effect that we will destroy the global economy and be forced to head towards a more agrarian form of lifestyle where we live off the land and only consume what is necessary for living.  Where is the middle ground?  Where are the people of “common sense” that proclaim moderation in life and how we live?  Why do these people sit quietly and watch the issue deteriorate to the point that they have to step in and solve the problem when we could be on that path already?

This world has been around a long time and she has seen a lot of things happen.  We are but a breath in comparison to what the world has been through yet we think we are so important.  Moderation in everything in consideration of how we live in this world is essential to maintaining the balance of the world and the world we want to live in.  Technology will and has garnered us great things and it will continue to from now until we cease to be.  Alternatives to the current lifestyle that we live are already being explored from hydrogen powered cars to solar powered plants that are efficient enough to work for the community as a whole.  Fears of certain power sources have seen declines in areas that we should explore and do not.  Also common sense should be used to understand that in the current world of transition that we should take care of the present while planning for the future.  Drill for the oil that we need to maintain our economic conditions but plan for a future where oil and other fossil fuels are a thing of the past.  Energy firms know that the time for new sources of energy is approaching and they are investing in these new forms.  Companies want to survive and thus will strive to move in the direction that change is approaching and in this case away from fossil fuels and towards a more “fuel efficient” society.

In conclusion, common sense has not been lost, it just does not have a loud enough voice.  Someone needs to buy it a bull horn so it can be heard because it is with this type of logic that we can change the past, to live in the present, and plan for that future that is only in our dreams and we long to live in.

By:  Jonathan Hessling

there are countless historical examples wherein the governing regime demands cooperation from the people “for their own good”. alex gourevitch addresses the politics of fear in a recent article in n+1, arguing that compliance in the name of the war on terror has now been replaced with compliance based on the war for the environment. he says, “environmentalism is one of the few movements on the left that presents itself in the same totalizing political terms that the war on terror does on the right, and its influence only seems to grow as the war on terror’s influence declines” (n+1).

furthermore,

The global warming argument can be as morally coercive as the infamous ticking time-bomb torture scenario, even if the clock ticks slower. It’s not just that we should unite; we are, as Gore puts it, “forced by circumstance” to act. In the face of real political opportunities, there is always an element of freedom. One chooses between two alternatives, picks a principle, and commits to it. Imagining ecological collapse as an overweening crisis demanding immediate action and collective sacrifice, with emergency decisions overriding citizens’ normal wants and wishes, is not really a politics at all, but the suspension of politics—there is no political choice, no constituencies to balance, nothing to deliberate. There is no free activity, just do or die. It seems we will have traded one state of emergency for another.

We have already seen that political action based on fear has disastrous consequences, “we have seen that security is an unstable foundation for institutions—the separation of powers, constitutionalism, federalism, civil society—that liberals have recently sought to rehabilitate. It is a principle that can only constrain and limit politics, not renew our political imagination. No social change is possible without a great deal of uncertainty, and even the production of insecurity. No truly democratic choice comes with a guarantee of success, and always produces unintended outcomes. Democracy must embrace an experimental attitude toward society” (n+1).

-a rebuttal by benjamin kunkel
-an anti-growth opinion by chad harbach

On the five year anniversary of the war in Iraq, President Bush continues to defend America’s presence in the Middle East. Below are excerpts from his Wednesday, March 19 speech – flowery rhetoric that ignores the reality of the situation:

Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting … whether the fight is worth winning … and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision – and this is a fight America can and must win…

Over the past five years, we have seen moments of triumph and moments of tragedy. We have watched in admiration as 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists, went to the polls, and chose their leaders in free elections.

And we have watched in horror as al Qaida beheaded innocent captives, and sent suicide bombers to blow up mosques and markets. These actions show the brutal nature of the enemy in Iraq. And they serve as a grim reminder: The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad want to murder the innocent in the streets of American cities. Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely we will face this enemy here at home.

A little over a year ago, the fight in Iraq was faltering. Extremist elements were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos…

My administration understood that America could not retreat in the face of terror. We knew that if we did not act, the violence that had been consuming Iraq would have worsened, spread, and could eventually have reached genocidal levels.

Baghdad could have disintegrated into a contagion of killing, and Iraq could have descended into full-blown sectarian warfare. So we reviewed our strategy – and changed course in Iraq. We sent reinforcements into the country in a dramatic policy shift that has become known as “the surge.”…

The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around – it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al-Qaida rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al-Qaida out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated…

The challenge in the period ahead is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists’ defeat. We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast – the terrorists and extremists step in … fill the vacuum … establish safe havens … and use them to spread chaos and carnage. …

The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable – yet some in Washington still call for retreat. War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq – so now they argue the war costs too much. In recent months we have heard exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war.

No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure – but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.

If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate – and Iraq could descend into chaos. Al-Qaida would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones – fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq’s borders, with serious consequences to the world economy.

Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened – with new recruits … new resources … and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America. An emboldened al-Qaida with access to Iraq’s oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations. Iran could be emboldened as well – with a renewed determination to develop nuclear weapons and impose its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East.

And our enemies would see an American failure in Iraq as evidence of weakness and lack of resolve. …

In the long run, defeating the terrorists requires an alternative to their murderous ideology. So we are helping the people of Iraq establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. A free Iraq will fight terrorists rather than harbour them. And a free Iraq will be an example for others of the power of liberty to transform societies and replace despair with hope. By spreading the hope of liberty in the Middle East, we will help free societies take root – and when they do, freedom will yield the peace we all desire.

Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, offers the following argument for withdrawing from Iraq.  In the article he states, “Staying in Iraq is a fatally flawed policy that has already cost more than 3,000 American lives and consumed more than $350 billion. The security situation in that country grows increasingly chaotic and bloody as evidence mounts that Iraq has descended into a sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Approximately 120 Iraqis per day are perishing in political violence. That bloodshed is occurring in a country of barely 26 million people. A comparable rate of carnage in the United States would produce more than 1,400 fatalities per day”.  Read the rest of his article here.