The Environment and The Economy

As a major supporter of "the environment first," I may return to the environment a few times. By "the environment first," I mean that environmental issues are the most pressing and important issues because they will effect everyone. As the most politically and economically powerful nation on the planet, it is our duty to make sure we stand out as a role model on environmental policy. Sadly, we do not even approach this standard.

An unfortunate fact of American government is that the wealthy control much of the actual decision making. Though a poor man has as much voting decision as Bill Gates, what the candidate running for office will undoubtedly be wealthy enough to actually run for office. As stated previously, this is a grievous flaw that must be changed. However, money also brings power in the form of lobbying government. A general citizen cannot simply approach their local senator or congressperson. They must visit them in their office, possibly in Washington. The average citizen may not know who his or her congressperson/senators are, and cannot possibly reach them easily. But a certain class of citizens can.

Wealthy CEOs, chairmen, businessman, presidents, and et cetera. The majority of economic politics today is shaped by corporations. And here lies the threat to the environment.

Economics 101 teaches the law of the market system. If I need widgets, and Corporation X sells widgets for $10, then I believe that a widget is worth more than ten bucks, and Corporation X believes it's worth less than ten bucks. However, the market system cannot prevent if these widgets cause toxins to enter the ocean. And preventing these toxins from entering the ocean would raise the price of widgets, causing the consumer to believe widgets are worth less than ten bucks, and possibly not purchase widgets from Corporation X. In real terms, this means corporations do not wish to prevent harm to the environment because it would change their bottom line, or remove their business all together. As stated in previous posts, a billion dollars is worth saving the world. The loss of your job or company is worth saving the world, as well.

But which companies are blocking environmental reform the most? The same ones that cause it. They go by the names of Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and many others. The major oil companies, the most powerful organizations in the world, are pleading for their utter survival. And politicians are buying it.

Disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

It's time to make sure the only ones who make government decisions aren't politicians and corporate lobbyists. United States senators and congresspersons should offer easy to access sites to post possible laws and issues. A good webmaster can make sure no death threats or hate mail is posted.

That's enough criticism. Since their power is going to be removed anyway, let's get a possible glimpse of what that could look like.

I personally support the idea of gradual conversion. Alternative energy sources (i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal) should be brought up to 50%. After this point, fossil fuel sources should be dropped, gradually, about 5%-10% per year, to 0. As this occurs, alternatives should raised to 100%. The process should take approximately 20 years (10 for the first 50% rise, 10 for the next 50% rise). Similar ideas could be performed with vehicles.

Hopefully, these ideas will be put into effect. It's time for change.

The Issue That I Don't Understand Why It's Such a Big Deal But I'm Eventually Going to Have to Cover Because It's So Important

Namely, President Obama's Health Care Reform. Why this has become such a huge turning point actually isn't a huge mystery, I realize, as the Republican party preaches that it is the first step towards socialism. To the risk of losing my few possibly Republican readers, let me state this: socialism isn't the worst thing that could possibly happen. The role of government is to protect the rights of the people. If socialism best protects these rights, then government is effective. Furthermore, most of Europe is socialist, as many know; though taxes are increased, people enjoy free health care and education. The ability to afford one's health and education leads to a higher standard of living, and most people of Europe enjoy the benefits they receive. Simply put, socialism, like democracy, may be the popular form of government for the modern era.


However, I do oppose Obama's health care reforms, on the grounds that it does not effectively solve the use of predesignated conditions (please correct me if I am using the wrong term). The point of denying those with predesignated conditions was to prevent this scenario:


Little Johnny breaks his leg. The parents can't afford the payment, so they order health insurance. Because there are no restrictions on predesignated conditions, the parents pay for the treatment, then cancel the insurance.


Insurance is to ensure that you will be able to pay for treatment when the need arises, not on demand. I fear that Obamacare would open the floodgates to millions of these scenarios. Therefore, removal of predesignated conditions should not be included in the reform. However, there is stark contrast between the Little Johnny scenario and the following.


Big Bill is perfectly healthy, and decides he has enough money to afford health insurance. However, as the insurance agency checks his conditions, he is diagnosed with diabetes. Therefore, his insurance is cancelled.


The legislation must allow for people who were perfectly healthy when they ordered insurance to obtain their insurance even if diagnosed with an illness during the screening process.


Despite my opposition to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, I do agree that there should be some form of government provided health care as an option for citizens who cannot afford traditional insurance.


Also in agreement with the AHCAA, doctors should receive more of the money paid for by non-insured patients than they are now (right now, the amount close to 0%; this should be raised to at least 40%).


I do not believe that these type of reforms are required in a 3,000 page bill. However, what surprises me most is that debate is continuing at what health care reform should be. If Congress cannot make a consensus based on both sides of the debate, the entire reform should be dropped like a hot pan. Much more important issues should be faced before health care, like the environment.


Don't fear socialism. Fear communism and oligarchies. If you ever believe the government is amassing too much power, it is your constitutional right to oppose the government. The sign of a free society is the ability to oppose the government without being thrown in jail. Socialism is still a free society.


Following a political party isn't the right idea, unless you agree with them on every single issue. Make your own decisions. Be independent. Don't follow the crowd.


As I explained before, health care should have been on the back burner. We have much more important things to deal with.