Evaluating Obama, Romney environmental policy

On the night of Nov. 6, when we are all glued to our televisions and computers, waiting for the election results, we will not only be deciding our next president, but also the environmental policies that could make or break the future of our species. 

 And while it’s true that we must make sure to cast an informed vote this November, especially during such a feverishly partisan election season, we must also take into account that political rhetoric isn’t the only thing heating up. 16 of the last 17 years have been the hottest on record, July was the hottest month in recorded history, and there is consensus among the scientific community that man-made global warming is well underway. What’s more alarming, the early signs of a changing climate are becoming more observable as well. Remember this summer’s devastating drought, hellish wildfires and general upsurge in severe weather? The vast majority of climate scientists agree: This is what climate change looks like. This year’s anomalous weather provides us with a preview of what the rest of our lives will be like unless significant policy to combat global warming is enacted very, very soon. 

As youth, this understanding should raise some glaring red flags in our politically active minds. And rightfully so: It’s imperative that we factor each candidate’s environmental policy into our vote this November, and it’s only just that we vote accordingly for the candidate whose policies would best protect our environment and in truth, our future. 

 And so, let us first consider our current administration. With regards to fossil fuels, under President Obama, domestic oil and gas production has reached their highest level in eight years, imports have fallen to lowest levels since 1996 and safety standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico have been raised substantially.

 President Obama has also called on Congress to end oil subsidies and increase clean energy investments; started the Better Buildings Initiative (which will make commercial facilities 20 percent more efficient by 2020); and established new standards for automobiles to achieve an average fuel economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. 

 No less, in this year’s State of the Union, President Obama announced that he “will not walk away from the promise of clean energy,” and so far, his statement holds true: Obama’s policies have ushered in an unprecedented amount of green jobs, evolving a previously underdeveloped sector into one of which over 3 million Americans are employed. 

But enough about Obama, let’s try to get a grasp on Romney. Mitt Romney’s environmental platform consists of a plan to accelerate oil-drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and public lands in general, toward which he holds a clumsy and eerily ambiguous stance. A Romney presidency would also increase federal subsidization of the fossil fuel industry, cut funding for renewable energy sources and end federal loan programs that help companies develop more efficient automobiles. 

It doesn’t take an environmental scientist to recognize how abhorrent these environmental views are, but what are we to expect from ol’ Willard? His presidential campaign has received $2.3 million dollars so far from the oil and gas industry, along with oil magnates Charles and David Koch having pledged $60 million in untraceable Super PAC donations. You’d probably support policies in your plutocratic donors’ interests as well, assuming you’re as susceptible to the scent of cash as most politicians today.

This is not to paint Obama as some squeaky-clean politician though, as his campaign has also accepted donations from the fossil fuel industry, however at a much smaller amount, to the tune of $722,000. 

But above all else, President Obama’s environmental policy bears one huge advantage to all rational minded voters: It is rooted in logic. Obama understands the fact that climate change is underway due to our overproduction of greenhouse gases, and he plans to invest in more clean and efficient means of energy. Romney, on the other hand, rejects this notion entirely and the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports it. 

To some of the environmentally conscious among us though, the Obama administration’s efforts to combat global warming have not done nearly enough, and that is true to some extent. Obama’s policies are certainly not acting swiftly or aggressively enough as some climate scientists say is necessary to avoid the dangerous effects of global warming. 

 However, due to our political system and the duopoly it enables, we are provided with only two viable parties, and thus two viable candidates. Having said that, by now the choice is clear: A vote for Mitt Romney this November is a vote for unprecedented, rapacious environmental destruction. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a future plagued by the worst-case scenarios of climate change. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote against our generation and the planet we will inherit. A Romney presidency is something no environmentally-conscious student should support. Of course, though, the choice is yours.

--

Special thanks to Rebecca Leber over at Grist as well for her awesome post "How Obama and Romney compare on green issues", which I borrowed a lot of my links from. The main substance of this post was published in my column in today's Maneater as well, but in a more edited/condensed form which you can read here if you'd like.
Don't hesitate to share your thoughts, especially if you're a youngin as well -- we need to get more climate change networking/mobilizing going for our future's sake!

Cap and trade foolishly, systemically undervalues nature

Well, my column on cap and trade was published today. It's a bit condensed and in some places oversimplified, but the basic argument is there. Anyway, check it out and please don't hesitate to share your thoughts! By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I support stricter carbon emissions regulations similar to the 'cap', as opposed to cap and trade.

--

We are running out of time — greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere due to our unprecedented burning of fossil fuels, securing global warming in the short term and theprospect of irreversible climate change in the long term. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that our planet is in trouble, we are living unsustainably and we must change our ways soon, unless humans want to go the way of the Dodo.

And yet, despite living in such environmentally crucial times with every day more critical than the last, there is little our leaders can agree on. In Congress, for example, legislation promoting more stringent carbon emissions regulations is consistently beaten down due to our political system, largely funded by – and thus beholden to – the fossil fuel industry.

And even more alarming is the defining sentiment to emerge from this summer’s 20th annual United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20. Conservation organizations were unanimous in their outrage that no sufficient progress toward sustainable development has been made since the conference started 20 years earlier. This trend of inaction will continue at least until the devastating and, by then, irreversible effects of global warming are realized, or as long as certain powers remain in control.

That said, let us take some time to consider these powers, along with their proposed plan to solve our ongoing climate crisis: a policy called cap and trade.

Cap and trade is best understood in two main parts. First is the “cap,” wherein government regulators set a yearly limit on the amount of carbon emissions companies are allowed to release into the atmosphere. Companies that exceed this limit face hefty fines, while companies that release carbon emissions under the limit (investing in renewable energy or otherwise reducing their emissions) are rewarded with government subsidies. The cap will decrease every year until we eventually reach a safe and ideal level of carbon emissions.

This first step probably sounds pretty good, and that’s because it is – I am strongly in favor of the “cap” portion of cap and trade. The real problem lies in the second part.

The trading aspect involves those aforementioned government subsidies. Subsidies are rewarded to companies that release less than the yearly carbon limit, in the form of tradable credits called carbon credits. Companies that receive carbon credits will be able to sell them via a multi-trillion dollar market in which companies that wish to continue polluting will be required to purchase credits, unless they’d rather pay heavy fines.

The whole idea is to solve the climate crises and build our economy at the same time by implementing a market system that gives companies incentives to innovate and reduce carbon emissions. In theory, the policy sounds like a reasonable way to address our environment. However, when we take a closer look and put our current crisis in an evolutionary context, cap and trade appears to be not only an unnecessarily complex, potentially inefficient solution, but also a policy that undermines our species’ fundamental coexistence with nature and our finite biosphere.

At the heart of cap and trade is a concept called natural capital, which is essentially the practice of putting a price tag on nature by means of protecting it. A questionable notion, it’s what led scientists to determine the worldwide value of insect pollination, mainly bees, at $217 billion in 2008 in an effort to measure the economic vulnerability of pollinator decline.

But by establishing the overall value of a natural process, an invaluable process, we are effectively placing ourselves above nature. Let’s get one thing straight: We, as humans, are not above nature. We are a part of nature. We seem to have forgotten this, trashing our planet and taking it for granted since the dawn of industrialization.

Global warming is an extremely important issue that must be addressed, but we cannot undermine the truly priceless role of nature in the process. Cap and trade policies are seemingly well-intentioned and might, troublingly enough, prove to be the most practical approach to addressing our endangered climate. However, if we were to put a value on any kind of natural process, the price tag should always be infinite.

Because if we fall victim to a inefficient cap and trade system (or if we continue on our track of simple inaction), and our species suffers, eventually succumbing to the grip of a preventable environmental catastrophe, our only certain future will be as another layer in Earth’s fossil record. As always, though, nature will endure.

Originally printed in The Maneater

Organic food: good intentions, bad pragmatism

Earlier this week, a meta-analysis released by Stanford University concluded that organic foods are not any more nutritious than conventionally grown ones. The study, which combined data from 237 different research projects, got a lot of press coverage, and most people probably interpreted the findings as a hard case against spending a couple extra bucks at the store for organic foods.

Indeed, the report does seem to raise a glaring question: Why should a consumer buy more expensive organic foods when they are not any more nutritious than conventionally grown ones? Well, the first step in answering this question is to deconstruct the widely held notion that organic is somehow centered on the concept of making food more nutritious.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, sums up organics accurately and with considerable concision, saying on Food Politics, "Organics is about production methods free of certain chemical pesticides, herbicides, irradiation, GMOs, and sewage sludge in crops, and antibiotics and hormones in animals."

And, shockingly enough, as the authors of the Stanford study conclude, “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” So, it seems that there is really no viable reason not to lean toward an organic diet, unless consumers want to expose themselves to potentially harmful production practices just to save a few extra bucks at the store.

To really identify with the organic food movement and the quasi-altruistic/environmental label it’s associated with, people should not stop at organics in their quest for a more environmentally healthy lifestyle. We should realize the complex and harrowing issue of organic foods: the fact that our planet’s population will reach 9 billion by mid-century and that our environment is becoming increasingly unsustainable to traditional – no less organic – forms of agriculture. In some way or another, we will have to adapt to these changes.

And, after analyzing the conditions of this scenario, there seem to be only two distinct ways to adapt to our future food crisis: 1) address the food, or 2) address the environment.

Addressing our planet’s food supply is probably the lesser of the two options in terms of general popularity, as the thought of pesticides and bioengineered crops is typically held with contempt. However, even some passionate environmentalists think that bioengineered crops may well be our best bet for avoiding a global food crisis within the next century.

Stewart Brand, a well-known writer and long-time environmental activist, came out with his endorsement of bioengineered crops in 2009, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. And while there are some parts of Brand’s overall argument I take issue with, his assertion that bioengineered crops will become necessary to support a surging population on a warming planet is something I stand in confident solidarity with.

However, there is no question we would all rather keep our food supply natural, untouched by bioengineering at any level. The undesirable future practice of bioengineered food is something that can be prevented if we demonstrate support for substantial policy to combat global warming as soon as possible.

So, is shopping organic helpful in voicing our support for more sustainable practices? Yes, but we shouldn’t stop there. If we really care about our food supply and the production methods associated with it, we should also be inclined to get involved with student groups aimed at developing sustainable practices and follow certain lifestyle guidelines to reduce waste and fossil fuel dependency.

The organic food movement is one with good intentions, but it is not a pragmatic long-term solution to our evolving food crisis. Pesticides, herbicides and GMOs will only become more necessary as our planet heats up and our food supply becomes even more vulnerable. If we are worried about the current state of conventional agriculture, it’s only right we look forward and inform ourselves of the dangers of global warming as well, no doubt ushering in a future era of near-ubiquitous conventional production methods.

Originally printed in The Maneater

The wrong side of history

Throughout the course of civilization, there have been certain constants. Recurrent forms of governments, markets and violence are a few basic examples, but I’d like to address one consistency that glares chief among them in today’s battle for a more sustainable future: resistance. Whenever there has been social progress to be made, there has been consequent resistance.

This proves true even if our focus is narrowed to national history. Martin Luther King Jr. had the segregationists, Susan B. Anthony had the anti-suffragists and even today the LGBTQ community faces opposition in its fight for marriage equality. In all of these cases, the resistance has been (and will be) remembered as being on the wrong side of history.

But there is a far more wicked form of resistance taking place every day — one that not only threatens a small group’s rights, but also fundamentally harms our environment and the well-being of humanity as a whole.

Let us first consider the overall state of the environment – a topic worthy of much pontification but that, for a columnist’s word count’s sake, I will try to keep succinct. Among other pressing environmental issues, the most imperative is the sum of the following statement, which isoverwhelmingly supported by the scientific community: Man-made global warming is happening and will lead to an environmental catastrophe if we do not act soon.

This issue is no longer debatable. However, that point established, it would be foolish not to question further and consider the face of resistance, the force most opposed to a sustainable future, the force most opposed to our sustenance on Earth: the fossil fuel industry.

The fossil fuel industry, the most profitable enterprise in the history of the world, reports record profits year after year, raking in $137 billion in 2011 and more than $1 trillion since 2001. This is in no small part due to the fact that governmental policy regulating carbon emissions, its top waste product, is virtually nonexistent — and lest we forget that carbon is the atmosphere’s most destructive and overly abundant greenhouse gas and the primary contributing factor to global warming.

To put this into more relatable terms, imagine yourself as a business owner: you would make a lot of money too if you weren’t forced by law to properly dispose of your waste. But who wouldsuffer from your gain? The fossil fuel industry is committing unprecedented environmental damage in the name of sheer mammonism.

But arguably the most nefarious aspect of the fossil fuel industry is how it spends its dirty dough. Through immense campaign contributions and lobbying, the industry holds a heavy presence in nearly all forms of government, managing time and again to escape any real accountability for its pollution of the atmosphere and other environmental damage.

No less, Washington actually gives the fossil fuel industry billions of dollars each year in the form of government subsidies. The most credible estimates of these subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while efforts to remove even small portions of the subsidies are constantly defeated in Congress due to the shameful unification of Oil and State.

The industry has a history of deliberately distorting public opinion as well by funding climate change denial groups and propagating the falsehood that there is credible dissent of global warming (there isn’t). In fact, the oil lobby has even gone so far as to organize public rallies with companies busing in employees, portrayed as citizens’ movements in protest of carbon emissions regulations.

In any struggle for social progress, “Know your enemy,” Sun Tzu’s classic proverb, still rings true. Make no mistake about it: As long as the fossil fuel industry is able to continue its egregious resistance unimpeded, we are on a fast track to an environmental catastrophe. In this election year and the coming ones, we must fight for carbon emissions regulations and sustainable development — we must let our representatives know we want our money going toward renewable energy subsidies, not perverse fossil fuel subsidies.

The battle for sustainability won’t be easy, especially in the face of such unprecedented wealth and opposition, but this will have to be our generation’s defining victory. Not for us, but for humanity. There is really no other option. It’s time we start realizing that.

Originally printed in The Maneater

Heirs to catastrophe

And the ball continues to roll. For the Fall 2012 semester, The Maneater has decided to host yet another weekly column on environmental issues.

The reason environmental discourse is so crucial, especially at a university beholden to such journalistic notoriety, is because we face a challenge of unprecedented proportions as heirs to our current environmentally-ravaged planet. And perhaps it is only necessary then that, as a first order of business, we address the current state of our environment.

There is no longer any room for debate: Man-made global warming is happening. Concentrations of greenhouse gasses are building up in the atmosphere with the potential to irreversibly damage all life on Earth if we do not act soon. This is not a contested issue – it’s scientific consensus, with 98 percent of the most published climate researchers in agreement, and no scientific body of national or international standing holding a dissenting opinion.

You likely felt the effects this summer, but here are the facts: Sixteen of the last 17 years have been the hottest on record, the first six months of 2012 were the hottest on record and July 2012, in daunting consistence, was the hottest month in recorded history for the contiguous U.S.

And this heat is not just an inconvenience. In July, the U.S. Department of Agriculture declared more than half of all U.S. counties were experiencing drought severe enough to be considered a natural disaster – the biggest natural disaster in its history.

As a result of the drought, 48 percent of corn crops across the Midwest are in “poor” or “very poor” conditions, plus 37 percent of soybeans, and the prospects for next year’s yield aren't looking much better. What’s more, the USDA reported about two-thirds of land with hay and three-fourths of land with cattle in the U.S. is drought-stricken.

Putting aside the impact this will undoubtedly have on global food prices – not to mention the sparking of some global unrest – the most troubling thing about all this is it’s exactly what climate scientists have been warning us about all along.

So you’d think after realizing the effects of global warming are already upon us, world leaders would be acting not only for their own best interests, but also in the best interests of mankind? If they were to come together for some kind of yearly summit on sustainable development, they could divert our catastrophic course for the future.

Well, the 20th annual embodiment of that took place last month in Rio de Janeiro, in the form of Rio+20. No progress was made — President Obama didn’t even attend. The conservation organization Greenpeace even went as far as to call the outcome a “declaration of war” on the financial sector, which sits on such immense wealth that it could provide unparalleled support in the transition to a green economy, but instead continues to fund the destructive fossil fuel industry.

So, you may be asking yourself, what is there to do, then? What do we do when the state of our planet is rapidly declining, and the executive director of arguably the most active conservation organization in the world declares war on the financial sector we all buy into whether we like it or not?

Well, I’m afraid the answer to that question escapes any one person’s control. That said, I can only speak for myself when I propose the notion that within crises of such great magnitude, such unprecedented magnitude, the amount of progress made will have to correlate appropriately with the amount of social involvement each individual is willing to contribute.

We all must offer our voices to the bullhorn of sustainability at least passively through lifestyle choices. For the more audacious crowd, MU’s student organizations are a great place to start in the search of opportunities to do real, meaningful work and be part of something much greater than yourself.

Because if Rio+20 showed us anything – and I hate to sound so hackneyed and political, but this is a firm belief of mine – it is that our generation will have to be the one to face this challenge. Not just for us, our future generations and our species, but for nature, the Earth and all the life that calls it home.

Originally printed in The Maneater