yumm

Because I am certain no one in will my group will harshly judge me for my food preferences I suppose I can answer honestly by saying that I honestly have not once thought about environmental impact when making my food choices. I make food choices based upon what tastes good, what I am in the mood for at any particular time, and most importantly what is cheap and easily accessible. I am not a vegetarian and eat meat at every sitting. Truth be told I really have not considered the environmental impact of my eating habits and even taking the environment into consideration would probably not change them. Again the majority of my food making decisions is based upon price and convenience so if environmentally friendly foods were more accessible and more reasonably priced, or on the same note if meat products and other non eco friendly food sources became much less convenient or much more expensive, I would probably change my food habits, but until that time I am skeptical as to my ability to change.

In the past few days I have consumed a wide variety of food, probably all of which having a substantial environmental impact, but the item with the greatest impact was most likely consumed exactly 2 days ago. My grandpa took me out to lunch at Capital Grille in Friendship. It has an unnecessary e in the spelling of grill so you not it's a good spot. There, I got the Rib eye Steak Sandwich with Caramelized Onions and Havarti Cheese. 1200 calories of awesomeness. It was also served with Parmesan Truffle French fries. Seeing how it was a big slab of beef the environmental footprint is already through the roof, and then you add in something like truffle French fries and your taking out the planet single handedly. The beef was probably imported from across the nation and if I had to guess I would hypothesize that the truffles used in the truffle oil for the fries was not locally grown… Overall the meal certainly had a substantial environmental impact, especially if you take into consideration the amount of grain used to feed the cow that provided my bountiful meal.

Better than Nothing

Every little bit helps. This little philosophical idea is one that I tend to espouse. Obama’s proposed cut of $4 billion of Oil subsidies is certainly a step in the right direction. Every little bit helps. As to whether the government should subsidize any type of energy production, renewable or not, my answer is 100% yes. I definitely believe that clean energy production should be heavily subsidized until the industry can support our energy needs on its own. David Kreutzer, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, does not believe that any energy producer should be subsidized. He does not know if renewables could do fine without subsidies at the moment but that eventually, the industry would be fine, once prices fell. While I understand and generally support the economic logic behind this, when it comes to ridding ourselves of fossil fuels, it is simply too late to wait for the market to make renewable energy attractive. Governments need to take the lead in making clean energy viable and affordable.

In principal I am not behind additional support for nuclear energy, the switch from coal to natural gas, and research into carbon sequestration. However, I understand that looking into these methods may be a necessary evil to help us rid ourselves of the problems we have created. If these three methods can help us fight climate change faster than clean energies, well, we may have to use them. But when dealing with the question of whether to completely eliminate all subsidies, Michael Levi says it best, “an effort to eliminate all energy subsidies without instituting better alternative policies should be understood for what it is: a recipe for cementing the dominance of traditional fossil fuels against their competitors.”

Was it just me, or did this lack controversy?

Based on the views I've espoused in class, I'm more or less sure any of my 'blogmates' could have looked at the question and known that I had a cookie cutter answer for a response. Of course I commend Obama's efforts to restrain the fat-cat profiteers we can hold responsible for the promotion and flagrant advocacy of the status quo as rooted in contemporary transportation and the use of fossil fuels. By eliminating tax incentives to the tune of billions of dollars, Obama is sending a strong signal that his administration, to some degree, is opposed to allowing energy companies to control our country. This is a huge achievement in light of the last president's inability to do so.

Nonetheless, eliminating one type of subsidy doesn't solve the problem. It's positive for Obama to halt such reckless government policies, but he needs to posit alternative energy as the only viable solution to our fossil fuel addiction. Accordingly, I believe he should dramatically increase subsidies for clean energy by way of solar and wind power. It's important here to distinguish that the Obama administration's definition of what clean energy is has a broader definition than mine - chiefly, I don't consider coal or nuclear energy to be included in a plan to sustainably power our country for the next 100 years. The former is a resource that can and would be controlled by corporations that would be able to maintain their control over citizens and the government alike while eventually dwindling in supply and simultaneously exacerbating the state of the planet. The latter would leave us with a material we wouldn't know how to dispose of as well as position our nation in a vulnerable state - although perhaps I'm biased based on my hometown's proximity to Three Mile Island in PA. Conclusively, Obama should be very skeptical about how the US allows these giant commercial actors to play a role in future development. He is, however, taking strides in the right direction.

Oh, Uncle Buck!

The Obama Administration wants to switch subsidies from coal and oil to natural gas, solar, and nuclear power. This can be seen in two lights: that the administration is making as its first priority the reduction of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Or the second light: that the administration has subsidized one fossil fuel over another, and simply favors one industry over another. The switch from oil and coal to natural gas (not to mention subsidies aimed at storing carbon dioxide which is still subsidizing the coal and oil industries) reminds me of the film "Uncle Buck". An American classic, John Candy plays a gambling, smoking, drinking, dead-beat uncle that must watch over three children as their parents attend to one of the grandparents who has just suffered a heart attack. Candy has a brilliant monologue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDnfNzmV0FM

Uncle Buck's "5 year plan" serves as an excellent metaphor for the Obama Administration's energy policy regarding fossil fuels. The new subsidies redirect an addiction on a non-renewable resource to another non-renewable resource. From a longterm human-survival and sustainable lens this policy is a weak attempt, at best. But one cannot necessarily adopt such a lens given the current rigidity and pettiness of the political system. In a country where on party nearly summarily disavows global warming as a phenomenon, any administration that aims to limit greenhouse gases in the atmosphere comes up against stalwart political bulwark. I therefore contend that the Obama Administration's redirecting of subsidies to "cleaner" fuels such as nuclear, solar, and natural gas, though flawed, temporary, and minute, are the best we can ask for in such ridiculous times. If we are to arrive at more permanent, logical solutions for the problems that face our species, we first need reform in politics and media. If only.

The article is very interesting, particularly in that it addresses what I think is the major problem of energy in the United States: Lobbyists. The power of big oil and gas company’s lobbying groups allow the companies to basically run rampant through the government regardless of the amount of pollution they might potentially cause. They are in the control seat as tax cuts and subsidies are handed out to energy companies regardless of the amount of CO2 their products put in the air. In the current economic situation, with the current deficit of the government, tax breaks and voucher programs to big gas and oil companies is absolutely absurd. Though I am not a fan of subsidies of subsidies to industries that already have some of the largest profits in the world I do think that it is necessary for some energy producing areas to have subsidies. I am not a fan of the idea that these subsidies will last forever, but I think that it is necessary for companies to be able to use new technologies that might not be able to run quite as affordably but that are much greener without the fear of going bankrupt. I am, in essence, a fan of subsidies that go towards the energy industries that are carbon free. The current “global environmental crisis” is due in large part to the massive amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into the air due to the production of energy. If non-carbon burning energy sources receive subsidies now it will allow them to expand and invest in great technologies that will allow them to be competitive in the near future. Their growth will also allow the US to eventually put a cap on carbon emissions that would not so substantially hurt the energy sector that electricity prices would shoot through the roof rendering us in economic downfall.

I truly believe that with the current deficit of the government the US needs to significantly stop its tax breaks toward massive companies. There is no reason why a company that turns such a substantial profit truly needs to receive taxpayer money, or not to have its own taxes, just to stay afloat. Sure it might decrease its profits, but if you cut tax break and subsidies to the fossil fuels, yet they remain in carbon friendly energy sources those larges companies will start investing more money in the carbon friendly energy sources in order to keep their tax incentives. Overall by cutting subsidies to fossil fuel energy sources, yet letting some remain for eco friendly energy sources, the US government can save money and the environmental will be greatly helped.

Like H.A.L. from '2001: A Space Oddysey'

Technology is undoubtedly a potentially dangerous, and the least widely acknowledged, double-edged sword. It has empowered me to check my email via my iPhone in places where I once would have never fathomed, but it has also permitted me to accidentally phone my mother in a social setting and subsequently leave an embarrassing and highly incriminating voicemail. I would expand the first statement above to include not only the U.S. but what is, in a blanketed understanding, Western society. Not only do other nations wish to emulate Western technological progress, but encourage it through the campaigns of their companies. Other nations’ aspirations to further develop in the fashion of the United States are problematic to our global inability to acknowledge how profoundly dangerous technology can be.

Technology does have the potential to be our avenue to salvation, but only if embraced in a very particular way. The most obvious detriment to the planet in the way of technology is the automobile. In order to curb the constant effects of our country’s addiction to transportation (i.e. oil), the automobile industry must be heavily regulated. However, capitalist pressure does an efficient job to ensure this will not happen anytime soon. To think idealistically, I would advocate for government regulation of all technological industries. For example, if the government were to start funding research of alternative technologies – in a fashion more closely resembling government research versus subsidization of the private sector to conduct research – the technologies could be made more accessible than if they were marketed in the free market. Economic theory states that competition drives technological development, among other things, but I personally also believe that a conscientious acknowledgment of the drastic nature of the situation would prove to incentivize technological development more than enough. If the government more heavily regulated the technology sector, by way of taxation and other forms intervention, it would have more resources to be able to hire the best and brightest in the field. This probably resonates with communism (or even heavy-handing socialism), an idea that I’m not afraid to consider but overarchingly a conversation that is not being held. In addition to the firm grip on policy held by the automobile and oil lobbies, the two party system perpetuates the lasting nature of our economic system.

I concede that technology can play a role in resolving the deterioration of the planet, but it can also continue to play its primary role as a negative factor. One idea that kept recurring while I wrote this response was the metaphor of digging a hole with a shovel – you wouldn’t use the same shovel to get out of the hole you’ve dug yourself in, now would you? I look forward to everyone else’s insight.

I don't think its possible to relegate technology as wholly good or bad. The debate is more complex than providing opposing examples such as penicillin and nerve gas. But what one can say regarding technology is that it amplifies human potential: we seek to expedite communication and we invent the internet; we desire more efficient ways of killing one another and we design the first machine gun. Technology sheerly reflects the intent of the inventor. So will technology save our environment from ourselves? Only if we will it so. But think about what that takes! We need the political will to divert massive amounts of resources to research and development for more efficient and environmentally benign technologies ranging from solar panels to hydrogen cars. We need to aid the developing world so much that they skip the traditional "industrializing" process and employ "green" technologies while ascending a relatively rigid human framework considered "development". To say that technology will unequivocally and inevitably halt the Earth's degradation (let alone replenish its ecosystems) is to overlook the enormous obstacle that someone must invent those technologies, someone must implement those technologies.

That leads us to regard our incentives for innovation - wealth. Our capitalist system operates by rewarding innovators of technology and industry with extreme personal wealth. But it also requires investment of time, energy, and finance. For any project to get off the ground one needs money and time. And to put in those initial investments one must have a reasonable expectation of returns. If an economic landscape or industry's future is questionable, one can expect that innovation in that sector will be more timid. Again, technology does not create itself! For those that stand by the notion that technology alone is humanity's salvation, I would redirect the conversation and ask: then how do we encourage the investment and implementation of such technology?