According to recent news stories, there is reason to hope that the U.S. government will finally address the causes of global climate change. I want to be very upfront and tell you that I don't want this blog to become one-dimensional - I am concerned with everything that I outlined in my first post last fall: population, economy, agriculture, energy, transportation, and the myriad of other concerns that face our state. However, climate change is the one challenge we face that has the ability to impact every thing else.
In today's news there are stories about a major lobbying initiative urging new federal regulations to combat the causes of global climate change. Ten large U.S. companies, including General Electric, Alcoa, DuPont, BP America and Duke Energy, in concert with four national environmental organizations, have announced their support for a cap-and-trade system of restrictions on U.S. carbon emissions. This U.S. Climate Action Partnership is calling for a mandatory nationwide cap on carbon-dioxide emissions and reductions by as much as 30% from today's levels within 15 years. For a succinct analysis of the major points of US-CAP's recommendations, you can check out the BlueClimate blog. (FYI - Noticeably absent from their proposal, and most recent discussions on climate change, is the more controversial but expedient carbon tax.)
It's compelling to think that prominent business leaders have decided that combating global climate change is "good for business." California is especially vulnerable, and no one benefits if our agricultural economy is crippled by changes in temperature or a reduction in water supply. If these warning signs have finally reached critical mass among American consumers this may have been part of what motivated these business leaders into action.
Perhaps this is why America's founders were so enamored of both John Locke and Adam Smith. While focusing on different fields of thought, these two enlightenment philosophers shared a common perception of optimization through empowering the voice of the many - the optimal government is the one in which ideas are freely debated and government is beholden to the voters, and the optimal economy is a free market of fully-informed consumers giving information to vendors through their purchasing power. In many ways, yesterday's announcement by US-CAP is the optimal result in a free market democracy - businesses responding to the demands of consumers and citizens.
Of course, another reason that this is happening is the political reality after the 2006 Congressional elections. There is a growing consensus among business leaders that federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions are inevitable, and the best way to shape the debate around the upcoming legislation is to get in on the ground floor. If this is the case, then kudos to Speaker Pelosi, her democratic colleagues, and the field of 2008 presidential candidates for finally putting this issue on the priority list for the U.S. federal government.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Friday, December 15, 2006
Who We Are
Demographics, the study of human populations, gives us a powerful tool to identify our community's needs and plan for future developments. This is not an earth-shattering proposition. Everyone from William the Conqueror to the founders of the American Republic understood the importance of a regular census. Article I, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution mandates an enumeration of all residents of the fledgling republic as a basis for the proportion representation in the U. S. House of Representatives - the origin of our current decennial census program.
With rapid changes in the make-up of who we are, and the need to know such information as quickly as possible, the U. S. Census Bureau has begun a program to fill gaps in the information that occur in the ten year period between each regular census. The American Community Survey polls select groups of the population on a regular basis to track key trends. While not as accurate as the decennial census, it is far more timely. The Census Bureau recently released 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States. Take some time today and feast on the available information about who we are.
With rapid changes in the make-up of who we are, and the need to know such information as quickly as possible, the U. S. Census Bureau has begun a program to fill gaps in the information that occur in the ten year period between each regular census. The American Community Survey polls select groups of the population on a regular basis to track key trends. While not as accurate as the decennial census, it is far more timely. The Census Bureau recently released 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States. Take some time today and feast on the available information about who we are.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Elections Have Consequences
In a recent interview, Barbara Boxer outlined her priorities as the incoming Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In her interview, Senator Boxer criticizes the anti-environmental tactics pursued by the Bush Administration, and allowed by the outgoing Republican-controlled Congress. "Any kind of weakening of environmental laws or secrecy or changes in the dead of night — it's over. We are going to bring these things into the light." Perhaps Senator Boxer simply understands one of the basic tenets of a successful republican government, that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."
Or perhaps our long, national environmental nightmare is over, and we have a chance to make a new start. We all benefit from fresh air, clean water, and the other basic life-supporting functions of a healthy environment. All of us should critically evaluate the actions of our businesses, our government, and us in our everyday lives through the lens of environmental awareness. As Senator Boxer put it, "I very much want the environment to go back to being a nonpartisan issue." I could not agree more.
In her interview, Senator Boxer criticizes the anti-environmental tactics pursued by the Bush Administration, and allowed by the outgoing Republican-controlled Congress. "Any kind of weakening of environmental laws or secrecy or changes in the dead of night — it's over. We are going to bring these things into the light." Perhaps Senator Boxer simply understands one of the basic tenets of a successful republican government, that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."
Or perhaps our long, national environmental nightmare is over, and we have a chance to make a new start. We all benefit from fresh air, clean water, and the other basic life-supporting functions of a healthy environment. All of us should critically evaluate the actions of our businesses, our government, and us in our everyday lives through the lens of environmental awareness. As Senator Boxer put it, "I very much want the environment to go back to being a nonpartisan issue." I could not agree more.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
New Opportunities in Congressional Representation
Having volunteered on a Congressional campaign this past election cycle, I am struck by what a challenge it is for current and prospective Members of Congress to connect with the electorate.
As Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand" people. Based on this metric, for the 1st and 2nd Congresses (1789-1793) there were 65 members of the House of Representatives. The first decennial census in 1790 gave a more accurate count of the new republic's population, which stood at 3.9 million people. Accordingly, membership of the House of Representatives was increased to 106 after re-apportionment. This number stood for the 3rd through 7th Congresses, 1793-1803. Similar increases occurred after every decennial census throughout the 19th Century. However, after the 1910 decennial census, Congress decided to limit the membership in the House to 435. Since then, the average number of people represented by each member of the House has ballooned to 646,952. Each of the 53 members of the House of Representatives from California currently represents 681,739 people.
What I'm trying to get at here is that the current "representation load" borne by each member of the House of Representatives is far greater than the framers of the Constitution intended. How does a single member of Congress interact with 680,000 people? How does the member most-accurately gauge the ideas, beliefs and values of the people they represent? And how does the Member share thoughts, news and issue updates with the voters?
Historically, these functions would largely take place in face-to-face interactions like town hall meetings. However, for a member of Congress today to attempt face-to-face interactions with every singled represented individual would be impossible. Each member of Congress from California would have to speak with a crowd of 934 different people, 7 days a week for the entire 2-year term to which he/she is elected. And that doesn't include any time for the elected representative to travel to Washington, DC to vote on our behalf.
Alternately, mass media has allowed members of Congress to communicate with more people than would be possible to personally interact with. The local printing presses and political pamphlets of the past have given way to radio and television as powerful tools for elected officials and candidates to communicate with the electorate. However there are two large problems with using mass media as a supporting pillar for republican government.
First, mass media costs money. Relying on mass media for communication with voters drives up the cost of Congressional campaigns, and encourages candidates to rely more on large donors than individuals. To make matters more complex, mass media advertising costs different amounts of money in different areas. A 30-second prime time spot in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles would cost much more than a comparable purchase in a smaller television market. Second, mass media is a one-way street. It allows candidates and members of Congress to communicate ideas to constituents, but not engage them in a dialogue.
New technologies have recently provided us with a possible solution - networked organizations. This is a tool that is increasingly used in the private sector to bring decision-makers closer to the consumer. Could these ideas be adapted to perform a similar function and shorten the distance between members of the House of Representatives and the 680,000 people they represent? There has been success with the so-called netroots campaigns of 2004 and 2006, but what sorts of hurdles would need to be overcome to put this kind of structure in place for everyday communication between Representatives and constituents? Would the government subsidize internet access and computers for everyone? Over the next few months I will occasionally focus articles on this topic, in order to encourage discussion on how we can improve the structures of our republican government.
As Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand" people. Based on this metric, for the 1st and 2nd Congresses (1789-1793) there were 65 members of the House of Representatives. The first decennial census in 1790 gave a more accurate count of the new republic's population, which stood at 3.9 million people. Accordingly, membership of the House of Representatives was increased to 106 after re-apportionment. This number stood for the 3rd through 7th Congresses, 1793-1803. Similar increases occurred after every decennial census throughout the 19th Century. However, after the 1910 decennial census, Congress decided to limit the membership in the House to 435. Since then, the average number of people represented by each member of the House has ballooned to 646,952. Each of the 53 members of the House of Representatives from California currently represents 681,739 people.
What I'm trying to get at here is that the current "representation load" borne by each member of the House of Representatives is far greater than the framers of the Constitution intended. How does a single member of Congress interact with 680,000 people? How does the member most-accurately gauge the ideas, beliefs and values of the people they represent? And how does the Member share thoughts, news and issue updates with the voters?
Historically, these functions would largely take place in face-to-face interactions like town hall meetings. However, for a member of Congress today to attempt face-to-face interactions with every singled represented individual would be impossible. Each member of Congress from California would have to speak with a crowd of 934 different people, 7 days a week for the entire 2-year term to which he/she is elected. And that doesn't include any time for the elected representative to travel to Washington, DC to vote on our behalf.
Alternately, mass media has allowed members of Congress to communicate with more people than would be possible to personally interact with. The local printing presses and political pamphlets of the past have given way to radio and television as powerful tools for elected officials and candidates to communicate with the electorate. However there are two large problems with using mass media as a supporting pillar for republican government.
First, mass media costs money. Relying on mass media for communication with voters drives up the cost of Congressional campaigns, and encourages candidates to rely more on large donors than individuals. To make matters more complex, mass media advertising costs different amounts of money in different areas. A 30-second prime time spot in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles would cost much more than a comparable purchase in a smaller television market. Second, mass media is a one-way street. It allows candidates and members of Congress to communicate ideas to constituents, but not engage them in a dialogue.
New technologies have recently provided us with a possible solution - networked organizations. This is a tool that is increasingly used in the private sector to bring decision-makers closer to the consumer. Could these ideas be adapted to perform a similar function and shorten the distance between members of the House of Representatives and the 680,000 people they represent? There has been success with the so-called netroots campaigns of 2004 and 2006, but what sorts of hurdles would need to be overcome to put this kind of structure in place for everyday communication between Representatives and constituents? Would the government subsidize internet access and computers for everyone? Over the next few months I will occasionally focus articles on this topic, in order to encourage discussion on how we can improve the structures of our republican government.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
NO on Proposition 90
First of all, I'm no fan of California's initiative process. In the best of circumstances I believe it leads to piecemeal legislation, and is still beholden to the moneyed interests that it was meant to circumvent. In the worst of circumstance, it is a vehicle for out of state commercial interests and real estate developers to wage a wholesale war on our way of life. Proposition 90 is so bad that I regret having to give any space in my blog to talk about it. It will gut the planning and zoning process currently carried out by local government, and cause irreparable harm to our environment, our communities and our individual rights.
It certainly seems reasonable that large groups of people living together should establish basic laws that promote the general welfare and protect the resources that sustain them. Throughout our history we have organized ourselves to protect agricultural and environmental resources that ensure that future generations will be able to live as we do. However, Proposition 90 would remove the protections we have built for our environment. If passed, it would erode our ability to pass laws protecting natural resources, ensuring water quality and supplies, and regulating growth and development.
Our communities and our infrastructure will be hard-hit if Proposition 90 passes. Lawsuits brought under Proposition 90 would cost our local governments billions of dollars, forcing deep budget cuts for public safety, law enforcement, education and transportation. Proposition 90 will make it more difficult to enact new consumer-protection and anti-crime laws. Proposition 90 would restrict capital investment projects in the state, including flood control, school construction, utility system upgrades, highway expansions and mass transit projects.
Proposition 90 would also erode individual property rights. Because local governments would no longer be able to enact zoning regulations the way they do today, no one will be protected against a Wal-Mart or a subdivision of McMansions next door. Citizens will no longer be able to determine how our communities develop. Developers will no longer have to live up to our democratically set standards. Decades' worth of community plans and growth management will go down the toilet.
This is why pretty much everybody in the state of California opposes Proposition 90. It's so sad - and simply ridiculous - that we all have to spend our money and work so hard just to turn back a handful of evil out-of-state speculators. Please vote NO on Proposition 90 on November 7.
If you would like to go the extra mile and help encourage good planning, and not just fight bad planning in California, I urge you to check out the Planning and Conservation League, one of the many good advocacy groups that our state has to encourage stronger California communities.
It certainly seems reasonable that large groups of people living together should establish basic laws that promote the general welfare and protect the resources that sustain them. Throughout our history we have organized ourselves to protect agricultural and environmental resources that ensure that future generations will be able to live as we do. However, Proposition 90 would remove the protections we have built for our environment. If passed, it would erode our ability to pass laws protecting natural resources, ensuring water quality and supplies, and regulating growth and development.
Our communities and our infrastructure will be hard-hit if Proposition 90 passes. Lawsuits brought under Proposition 90 would cost our local governments billions of dollars, forcing deep budget cuts for public safety, law enforcement, education and transportation. Proposition 90 will make it more difficult to enact new consumer-protection and anti-crime laws. Proposition 90 would restrict capital investment projects in the state, including flood control, school construction, utility system upgrades, highway expansions and mass transit projects.
Proposition 90 would also erode individual property rights. Because local governments would no longer be able to enact zoning regulations the way they do today, no one will be protected against a Wal-Mart or a subdivision of McMansions next door. Citizens will no longer be able to determine how our communities develop. Developers will no longer have to live up to our democratically set standards. Decades' worth of community plans and growth management will go down the toilet.
This is why pretty much everybody in the state of California opposes Proposition 90. It's so sad - and simply ridiculous - that we all have to spend our money and work so hard just to turn back a handful of evil out-of-state speculators. Please vote NO on Proposition 90 on November 7.
If you would like to go the extra mile and help encourage good planning, and not just fight bad planning in California, I urge you to check out the Planning and Conservation League, one of the many good advocacy groups that our state has to encourage stronger California communities.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Climate Change and the California Economy, Part 2
There was an interesting interview in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle with Peter Darbee, the CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric. I don't want to repeat all of the points that I made in last Friday's post, but I think this piece merits some extra attention. If any of you out there doubt that renewable energy is a growth sector for the economy, check out these numbers from the Chron article:
The interview also highlights the work of Stanford University's Steve Schneider, who has advised PG&E on climate change. Dr. Schneider is speaking at the Oakland Museum on Thursday, October 19 at 12:30pm, on "Global Warming: What Can California Do About It?" Admission is free.
PG&E is indeed taking action. The company's San Francisco utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., now gets 12 percent of its power from non-hydroelectric renewable sources -- wind, solar and geothermal. By the end of the year, Darbee said, that number should reach 14 percent, climbing to 20 percent by 2010.
The interview also highlights the work of Stanford University's Steve Schneider, who has advised PG&E on climate change. Dr. Schneider is speaking at the Oakland Museum on Thursday, October 19 at 12:30pm, on "Global Warming: What Can California Do About It?" Admission is free.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Climate Change and the California Economy
California's recent Assembly Bill 32 will help the Golden State reduce its carbon emissions. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations and market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Mandatory caps will begin in 2012 for significant sources and ratchet down to meet the 2020 goals.
Impressively, the Union of Concerned Scientists was able to organize a letter from sixty of California's leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, addressed to Governor Schwarzenegger and state legislators, urging them to accelerate policies to reduce global warming emissions. “The most expensive thing we can do,” they wrote, “is nothing.”
Critics of this recent legislation claim that it will cost California jobs, or that it will only curb carbon emissions by a small percentage compared to global carbon emissions. These criticisms miss the point. California's recent legislation is as much about the economy as it is about climate change. Even the state's largest investor-owned utility, PG&E, vocally supported the legislation.
This legislation will create new jobs in new sectors. It is an investment in California's economic future while we still have a strong economy and before any negative impacts from global climate change are severely felt. A recent study by the University of California at Berkeley projects that meeting AB 32's emissions limits can boost the Gross State Product (GSP) by $60-74 billion and create 17,000-89,000 new jobs. More importantly, it pushes California back out in front of the technological curve. The technologies that will be developed in California between now and the 2020 deadline will be vital to the whole world over the coming century.
Impressively, the Union of Concerned Scientists was able to organize a letter from sixty of California's leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, addressed to Governor Schwarzenegger and state legislators, urging them to accelerate policies to reduce global warming emissions. “The most expensive thing we can do,” they wrote, “is nothing.”
Critics of this recent legislation claim that it will cost California jobs, or that it will only curb carbon emissions by a small percentage compared to global carbon emissions. These criticisms miss the point. California's recent legislation is as much about the economy as it is about climate change. Even the state's largest investor-owned utility, PG&E, vocally supported the legislation.
This legislation will create new jobs in new sectors. It is an investment in California's economic future while we still have a strong economy and before any negative impacts from global climate change are severely felt. A recent study by the University of California at Berkeley projects that meeting AB 32's emissions limits can boost the Gross State Product (GSP) by $60-74 billion and create 17,000-89,000 new jobs. More importantly, it pushes California back out in front of the technological curve. The technologies that will be developed in California between now and the 2020 deadline will be vital to the whole world over the coming century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
