Our American Discourse, Ep. 22: While the World Burns, a More Sustainable Future Is in the Making

At this very moment, wildfires rage across Southern California. Florida, Puerto Rico, and Texas are picking up the pieces from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. These are only the latest instances of an increasingly volatile and destructive climate. But there is hope. Even as the United States withdraws from the Paris Agreement “for Sustainable Development,” cities, states, and private companies are rushing to fill the void. Sustainability is becoming a win-win-win: environmentally, socially, and even financially. The question is, are we too late?

In this episode, Christine Harada gives us an optimism that sustainability can prevail — and tangible proof that we can make it happen right in our own backyard.

Continue reading “Our American Discourse, Ep. 22: While the World Burns, a More Sustainable Future Is in the Making”

The Grand Republican Strategy: We Win, You Pay!

On a recent trip to London, I got into a conversation with a wealthy oil and gas investor about climate change. He didn’t disagree we need to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, he said. His job is to make sure the lights in our homes still turn on while we make the transition.

Fair enough, I said. Would you support a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program to speed up the transition?

“Sure,” he said, to my surprise, without hesitation. “As long as the revenue is spent on new technologies, and not given away to poor people.”

Ah. There’s always a catch.

At first, I thought it was a strange caveat, especially since we’d just got done talking about income inequality, an issue that he seemed quite concerned about. It wasn’t until I saw the Republican presidential hopefuls unveil their new economic plans that it all made sense:

I really want to do the right thing, he’s saying, as long as I don’t have to pay for it.

Carbon Tax BurdenThe reason for his concern, by the way, is that poor people have to spend a higher percentage of their income on oil and gas than rich people, so the burden of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program would fall the hardest on them. Many people think that’s unfair since (a) they’re already strapped for cash and (b) they’re not the ones profiting from all the carbon emissions. So progressive proposals usually include a rebate of some sort to ease their cost.

Our friend the oil-and-gas investor would rather give that money to — surprise, surprise — corporate America.

This, I realized, is the grand strategy of the new “reformocon” movement in the Republican party. No longer can a Republican run for president without admitting that the government must do something about our nation’s most pressing problems — but neither can he ask his friends in the One Percent to pay for it. Thus is born a new slogan: We win, you pay!

Mike Lee and Marco Rubio, two of the leading reformocons in the Senate, put this strategy to the test earlier this month when they released an ambitious tax plan centered around an expansion of the Child Tax Credit for middle-income households. Sounds great, right? Rather than cutting government spending for the middle class, these Republicans want to spend more. Heaven knows they could use it, after decades of dismal income growth. But who will pay for it?

Certainly not the rich. The Lee-Rubio plan eliminates taxes on investments, where they get most of their income, and it lowers the corporate tax rate and the income tax rate for the top bracket. Add it all up, and it turns out to be an enormous tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and barely any relief for everyone else.

Republican Budget CutsAnd what happens when all these tax cuts increase the budget deficit by $400 billion a year? Well, if recent history is any indicator, these same Republicans will scream “Crisis!” and demand spending cuts. If you’re wondering where those cuts will come from, look no further than the latest Republican budget, which gets two-thirds of its cuts from programs that help low- and moderate-income households. It scorches their budgets by 40 percent!

So, who will pay for the reformocons’ new plans? You know who.

No sooner had the ink dried on Marco Rubio’s deceptive debut than his presidential competitor Jeb Bush announced, in a speech about income inequality, that he would abolish the federal minimum wage.

Among the reformocon movement, Jeb Bush is not alone in this desire. You may wonder how they can expand the Child Tax Credit in one breath and abolish the minimum wage in the next, since the two policies are basically intended to help the same people?

It’s very simple really, once you understand the “we win, you pay” principle. Wages are paid by corporations. Tax credits are paid by…well, you just saw who, and it ain’t the corporations.

So, for the reformocons: Tax credits, good. Wages, bad.

The most egregious example of this strategy is our first official presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, who’s advocating a “flat tax,” charging the same rate to everyone, regardless of their income. For that to work, he’d have to raise taxes significantly on most Americans in order to cut them significantly for the richest Americans because the only way to raise the same amount of revenue is to find a rate somewhere in the middle of what the two groups pay now. It’s basic arithmetic.

But you never hear the reformocons talk about arithmetic in their speeches. They talk about inequality and upward mobility and the American middle class. They talk about all sorts of expensive new plans, and they never mention that there’s a catch.

They can’t mention the catch because it undermines the entire point of their reforms. If they win, you pay. And if you pay, they’re not helping you after all.

So, who are they helping? You know who.

==========

This op-ed was originally published in the Huffington Post.

Americans Still Want Renewable Energy — and They’re Going to Get It

American Public Support Effort to Reduce Global Warming

James Gaddy knows manure. Chicken manure, to be exact. He’s spent years working with it. That may not sound like much fun to you and me, but Gaddy is on a mission to power the earth — and, in the process, save it.

Specifically, Gaddy has figured out a way to produce ethanol from the bacteria in chicken manure. And it’s cellulosic ethanol, not the corn-based kind that siphons land in Iowa, jacks up the price of food, and results in almost as much greenhouse gas emissions as gasoline. No, this stuff is the real deal. It dramatically reduces greenhouse gases, and it comes from something we were going to throw away anyway.

I used to write about cellulosic ethanol, back when I first starting writing op-ed columns over six years ago. That was before the Great Recession — before we all became obsessed with the economy. People were more concerned about environmental issues then.

The most popular policy I proposed was a Manhattan Project for the 21st century: a national investment in a range of alternative energy technologies that would wean us off foreign oil and dramatically increase the efficiency of our energy use. It would be a public-private partnership. The free market would lead the way, creating and selling the products, but they would be supported by startup capital and loan guarantees from the federal government, the only entity big enough to absorb the upfront costs for a new national infrastructure, as it did in the days of Eisenhower and Roosevelt and even Jefferson.

People loved that idea. They saw it as this generation’s “we choose to go to the moon” moment. When the economy started to weaken in 2007, they liked the idea even more. Now, it wasn’t just investing in the future; it was creating jobs for today.

And it wasn’t just Democrats. The majority of my readers were Republicans, and they thought it was a great way to distance ourselves from Middle Eastern oil producers without a lot of government regulation.

According to a survey released earlier this week, their opinion hasn’t changed. The Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University polled Republicans and independents who vote Republican, and they found that 77 percent think we should use more renewable energy. A majority of them believe this so strongly that they think it’s worth the cost of any government intervention that may be necessary to achieve that goal. In fact, when they read the 2012 Republican Party platform, which doesn’t mention climate change but does celebrate coal and oil, two-thirds of them disagreed with it.

So I think it’s fair to say that Americans of both parties still want a large, Manhattan-style investment in renewable energy. Which brings me back to James Gaddy.

In Vero Beach, Florida, the Swiss company INEOS is building a biorefinery that will use Gaddy’s research to convert waste into eight million gallons of ethanol every year, all the while powering itself and creating electricity for others to use. This project would not have happened without a $50 million grant from the federal government, one of many grants included in the 2009 stimulus that has become so unpopular.

In fact, as investigative reporter Michael Grunwald documents in exhaustive detail in his book The New New Deal, the 2009 stimulus was “the biggest and most transformative energy bill in U.S. history,” funding everything from electric vehicles to high-speed rail, from biorefineries to wind farms, from solar panel manufacturing to home weatherization.

As it turned out, we got our Manhattan Project, and no one noticed. The Obama administration didn’t sell it, the media didn’t report it, and the Republicans in Congress did everything in their power to hide it and discredit it.

It wasn’t enough, but it was a start — and if the George Mason poll is any indication, it won’t be the end. The enemies of progress can stand in our way, but they can’t hold us back.

==========

This op-ed was published in yesterday’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Romney’s Energy Plans Don’t Bode Well for the Future

Mitt Romney has officially given up on the future. At least, that’s the way it looks from the energy plan he released last month.

The future is in peril for a number of reasons. Climate change is slowly eroding the environmental stability we’ve enjoyed for centuries. The wide gap between what we import and what we export is driving manufacturing jobs overseas. And our dependence on foreign oil embroils our national security in the explosive Middle East.

With his new energy plan, Romney surrendered on all three fronts.

When Romney proposed expanding oil drilling to previously restricted areas, he was probably listening to people like Fox News commentator Peter Morici, who has said, “Oil imports could be cut by two-thirds by boosting U.S. oil production to 10 million barrels a day.”

Only one problem: It’s impossible.

According to the Energy Information Agency, even if we open all those lands to exploration, our current production of 6 million barrels per day will never grow to more than 7.5 million, let alone 10. There just isn’t enough oil under the ground — and even if there were, it wouldn’t be available for another decade.

So we will always import oil — unless we replace it with something else.

By “something else,” of course I’m referring to renewable energy. The Romney plan, however, doesn’t propose a single policy to encourage the development and export of renewable energy technologies. Instead, it advocates even less oversight of an industry that experienced the worst environmental disaster in American history only two years ago.

Romney’s preference for oil over solar and wind power is particularly striking in light of his party’s alarmism over inflation (which never seems to materialize when they say it will). After all, oil prices have been rising for three decades, while manufacturing prices have been falling.

Since the 1990s, installation costs for wind power have fallen by 90 percent. In last year alone, solar panel prices fell 50 percent. Compare that to gas prices, which…well, you know.

Someone needs to tell Mitt Romney: You can’t be an inflation hawk and an oil bull at the same time. If you commit the nation to more oil, you’re committing to rising prices.

For a candidate so enthralled with innovation and entrepreneurship, it’s especially astonishing to see Romney’s indifference to the renewable energy market. If any industry could close the trade deficit with China, it’s solar and wind power, where China has much less advantage than in other manufactured products because labor only accounts for 4 percent of the total cost. “Imported oil and subsidized imports from China account for nearly the entire trade gap,” according to Morici.

So why not kill two birds with one stone?

Once upon a time, the federal government would have supported a blossoming industry like renewable technologies. Back when it was the fastest-growing economy in the world, the United States had the world’s highest industrial tariffs, protecting its young factories until they were strong enough to compete with foreign firms.

No longer. Under the rules of the World Trade Organization, high tariffs are not allowed, except in retaliation to a foreign competitor’s protectionism. China, for example, is now paying such a price for subsidizing its solar companies, giving them an unfair advantage over American firms like SolarWorld.

But, in many ways, the damage is done. Since receiving subsidies from the Chinese government, several Chinese companies have overtaken their American competitors. If we want to fight back, we’ll have to do the same with loan guarantees, tax credits, and major government purchases (all of which are allowed by the WTO).

But the Romney plan features nothing of the sort.

Sadly, we’ve seen this indifference before. As Judith Stein documents in Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance in the Seventies, we have watched too many opportunities go by since the 1970s, allowing foreign governments to subsidize their manufacturers while ours closed factories.

This is another such opportunity. But instead of seizing it, Romney is content to allow it to fall into the hands of the Chinese, just as he is willing to let the environment fall into the hands of Big Oil. The future will just have to fend for itself.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Sarah Palin and Froot Loops

by Norman Horowitz

Almost all Americans are familiar with Sarah Palin (SP) and Froot Loops (FLs), but not everyone notices the similarities:

  • Both SP and FLs are good to look at.
  • Both SP and FLs come in a variety of colors.
  • Both SP and FL’s look sweet but have little “nutritional value.”

SP was and is a fanatic supporting “drill, baby, drill.” FLs (and Kellogg’s) are, I gather, silent on this issue.
Synthroid no prescription
Fluoxetine without prescription

SP continues her rants in support of big oil and regularly repeats this in paid speeches.

Glibness is easy. Specificity, not so easy.

Taking cheap shots at the President is also easy. Creating alternative economic policies for the country is not so easy.

SP is still a very young woman who has (for whatever reason) captured the “hearts” of many Americans; however, in my view, she will never capture those who as a rule do not consider eating FLs. I’d prefer some granola, oatmeal, or Cream of Wheat.

Bottom line: Had either Al Gore (AG) or John Kerry (JK) been elected President  our dependence on foreign oil would have been reduced. AG has spent a lifetime warning about the polluting and economic dangers of dependence on foreign oil. JK is battling today to wage war against climate change and unshackle the potential of new energy sources. They were right all along. They should have been heard long ago. They should be heeded today.
Clomid no Prescription