© 2011 Joshua Stark
If you have not yet read it, please read this piece by Bill Magavern on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which he describes as, "the centerpiece of California's economic democracy." If you think that is a reach, then definitely read it to understand his position.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Not buying the premises
© 2011 Joshua Stark
California State Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg says that a budget deal with Republicans is close, which most likely means that:
A) A tiny cadre of probably termed-out Republicans will support a tax increase, most likely in the form of regressive taxes (sales, vehicle license fees, etc.); and
B) Democratic leadership will probably support environmental regulatory shortcutting in the name of "job growth".
I don't buy either premises.
First of all, the notion that we can re-establish a robust state government relying even more heavily on the backs of the poor and lower-middle class are ridiculous. I've talked about the problem with regressive taxes before, but I'll be clear and concise right here: A tax that disproportionately impacts poorer people is unethical and bad economics, because it devalues dollars by moving more valuable dollars (one dollar is worth more to a poorer person than to a richer one) into a pool of less valuable dollars, it exacerbates the problems of poverty (which require more government expenditures to fix), and it makes government revenues rely upon a more volatile base (poor people's purchasing power fluctuates a lot more than rich people's, which is why everybody wants to be rich).
The second premise is a bit more hidden: If Democrats agree to curtail environmental regulations in order to grow California's economy (jobs), then they are agreeing to the premise that environmental regulations are dragging California's economy.
I've yet to see a study showing this to be true. Further, I've seen studies showing that, if anything, the opposite is true.
To be honest with you, the majority of places where California's economy is in dire straits are those places where:
A) California's environmental regulations have been lax or inconsistently applied;
B) Places where California's economy has always suffered.
Think places like the Central Valley and other poor communities. For goodness' sake, we refer to them as environmental justice communities!
Just consider this another unintended consequence of term limits.
California State Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg says that a budget deal with Republicans is close, which most likely means that:
A) A tiny cadre of probably termed-out Republicans will support a tax increase, most likely in the form of regressive taxes (sales, vehicle license fees, etc.); and
B) Democratic leadership will probably support environmental regulatory shortcutting in the name of "job growth".
I don't buy either premises.
First of all, the notion that we can re-establish a robust state government relying even more heavily on the backs of the poor and lower-middle class are ridiculous. I've talked about the problem with regressive taxes before, but I'll be clear and concise right here: A tax that disproportionately impacts poorer people is unethical and bad economics, because it devalues dollars by moving more valuable dollars (one dollar is worth more to a poorer person than to a richer one) into a pool of less valuable dollars, it exacerbates the problems of poverty (which require more government expenditures to fix), and it makes government revenues rely upon a more volatile base (poor people's purchasing power fluctuates a lot more than rich people's, which is why everybody wants to be rich).
The second premise is a bit more hidden: If Democrats agree to curtail environmental regulations in order to grow California's economy (jobs), then they are agreeing to the premise that environmental regulations are dragging California's economy.
I've yet to see a study showing this to be true. Further, I've seen studies showing that, if anything, the opposite is true.
To be honest with you, the majority of places where California's economy is in dire straits are those places where:
A) California's environmental regulations have been lax or inconsistently applied;
B) Places where California's economy has always suffered.
Think places like the Central Valley and other poor communities. For goodness' sake, we refer to them as environmental justice communities!
Just consider this another unintended consequence of term limits.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Vatican takes a stand on climate change
© 2011 Joshua Stark
The Catholic Church recently published a report from its scientific arm - a non-denominational organization, and one of the oldest scientific bodies on Earth - showing its concern over the indisputable fact of mountain glaciers retreating all over the world.
From the introduction:
"We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious
and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused
by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other
land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without
delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of
climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain
glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.
By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility,
we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet
blessed with the gift of life.
We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet
receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink
as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect
the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant
us this wish."
The Catholic Church recently published a report from its scientific arm - a non-denominational organization, and one of the oldest scientific bodies on Earth - showing its concern over the indisputable fact of mountain glaciers retreating all over the world.
From the introduction:
"We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious
and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused
by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other
land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without
delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of
climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain
glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.
By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility,
we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet
blessed with the gift of life.
We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet
receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink
as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect
the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant
us this wish."
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Trying to stay afloat - and taking on Monbiot
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Work and life can really take from one's blogging time... I wish I could say that the World has had no environmental ethics dilemma as of late, and that's why I've been so sparse in blogging, but alas, that is not the case.
So, one fairly quick comment on some recent environmental conversation, hopefully to get my writing juices flowing.
George Monbiot, prominent environmentalist, has changed his mind about nuclear power, in light of what has happened at Fukushima. His article, "Seven Double Standards", is a strong defense for nuclear, though he hasn't convinced me. He is catching a lot of flak for his position - undeservedly so, as I truly believe he is looking out for the world's interests.
Still, he hasn't convinced me to support nuclear. His major argument, that if we eliminate nuclear as an option, we will turn to the far dirtier, people-killing coal, is true, but not inevitable. He conveniently leaves out both the option to turn to other renewables and more importantly, conservation. His idea that if Fukushima is the worst that can happen then nuclear is sound makes a point - to which I counter, a massive failure of a nuclear plant in a sparsely populated corner of the world's most technologically advanced country is not the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen is a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant near a massively populated region of one of the world's least technologically advanced countries. Of course, that could only happen if that country has enemies crazy enough, and of course, India is loved by all, right?
Even the article I link above, though generally well-written, completely ignores conservation, and makes a stretch about some other ideas (his last double-standard makes a wonderful argument against nuclear that I hadn't even considered, for example). But, he is right about coal: It is far, far worse than today's best nuclear options.
The question is: Where should we be spending our resources for our future production? I say, we should be focusing on generation that doesn't include catastrophic failures either as a means of doing business (coal) or as a potential (nuclear, hydroelectric). Thus, if it takes ten years to build either a good nuclear plant or a good solar plant, I choose the latter option.
Work and life can really take from one's blogging time... I wish I could say that the World has had no environmental ethics dilemma as of late, and that's why I've been so sparse in blogging, but alas, that is not the case.
So, one fairly quick comment on some recent environmental conversation, hopefully to get my writing juices flowing.
George Monbiot, prominent environmentalist, has changed his mind about nuclear power, in light of what has happened at Fukushima. His article, "Seven Double Standards", is a strong defense for nuclear, though he hasn't convinced me. He is catching a lot of flak for his position - undeservedly so, as I truly believe he is looking out for the world's interests.
Still, he hasn't convinced me to support nuclear. His major argument, that if we eliminate nuclear as an option, we will turn to the far dirtier, people-killing coal, is true, but not inevitable. He conveniently leaves out both the option to turn to other renewables and more importantly, conservation. His idea that if Fukushima is the worst that can happen then nuclear is sound makes a point - to which I counter, a massive failure of a nuclear plant in a sparsely populated corner of the world's most technologically advanced country is not the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen is a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant near a massively populated region of one of the world's least technologically advanced countries. Of course, that could only happen if that country has enemies crazy enough, and of course, India is loved by all, right?
Even the article I link above, though generally well-written, completely ignores conservation, and makes a stretch about some other ideas (his last double-standard makes a wonderful argument against nuclear that I hadn't even considered, for example). But, he is right about coal: It is far, far worse than today's best nuclear options.
The question is: Where should we be spending our resources for our future production? I say, we should be focusing on generation that doesn't include catastrophic failures either as a means of doing business (coal) or as a potential (nuclear, hydroelectric). Thus, if it takes ten years to build either a good nuclear plant or a good solar plant, I choose the latter option.
Monday, April 18, 2011
California Native Plant Week
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Yesterday kicked off California's first Native Plant Week. The California Native Plant Society has a list of events going on around the state celebrating this week, which was declared by the California Legislature last year (I'm very close to the person who wrote the resolution).
Also, if you are interested, you may read the resolution, which talks about the economic, social, and historical importance of native plants to California, here.
Yesterday kicked off California's first Native Plant Week. The California Native Plant Society has a list of events going on around the state celebrating this week, which was declared by the California Legislature last year (I'm very close to the person who wrote the resolution).
Also, if you are interested, you may read the resolution, which talks about the economic, social, and historical importance of native plants to California, here.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Black Swans, the Precautionary Principle, and Power
© 2011 Joshua Stark
A quick note: I'd like to read what you all think about nuclear power in light of the events in Japan. It is a horrible, sad, tragic series of calamities befalling the country right now, and I won't tolerate any unkind comments. For us, however, the debate should begin.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of "black swan" thinking, in general. However, outliers should be examined in the context of the level of catastrophe that may one day occur. For nuclear and large hydropower, the potential for catastrophe is large at generation. For petroleum and coal-based generation, the potential for catastrophe is large at extraction (see the Gulf). Really, the only generation types that would appear to limit the potential for catastrophe is very small hydropower, wind, and solar power.
What do you all think?
Friday, March 18, 2011
Much going on...
© 2011 Joshua
With a baby and a new job, I've found my blogging time constrained. Alas, the world still turns, and there are many topics on which I'd love to wax poetic...
First, this report from the U.N. on sustainable agriculture. In a nutshell, "agroecological farming practices" can double food production in many regions. These science-based practices empower local communities with their foods, which puts major corporate enterprises out - so, expect them to fight these conclusions.
Next, California Watch reports on a Pacific Institute report on nitrates in California's Central Valley groundwater... we've all known it's been there for years, but this report attempts to quantify the human impacts.
My view on the Central Valley, my second home, is that its social, political, and economic infrastructure is effectively a 3rd World country, a fiefdom for a handful of extraordinarily (and inordinately) powerful people. Pile this report on top of the reports on asthma, air quality, cancers, unemployment, working conditions, transportation, income inequality, etc. And if you are so inclined, please pray for the Valley.
The L.A. Times reports on Republicans using the budget in California to dismantle our environmental regulations. Please, conservative conservationists, keep up the calls to legislators, letting them know that this is not your value. The major law usually attacked is CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), which, in a case of powerful irony, is just about the only transparency-in-government law out there, and is also a law very often used by companies to keep out competition from industrial growth.
Looking at our economic and fiscal conditions, it's safe to say that these regulations have not had an economic impact on our State to any great extent, especially in relation to our quality of life, nor in comparison to more lax states like, say, Texas, whose budget deficit is larger than ours in absolute terms and in relative terms ($27 billion in Texas vs. $26.6 billion in California). Far larger an impact on our quality of life has been our decision to stop funding infrastructure like transportation, schools, and energy.
And, speaking to California's impact on the rest of America, it looks like our Congress has decided to run its budget show like we do here in the Golden State.
That's it for now. I'll try to get back into the swing of things, but first, I'd like a full night's sleep.
With a baby and a new job, I've found my blogging time constrained. Alas, the world still turns, and there are many topics on which I'd love to wax poetic...
First, this report from the U.N. on sustainable agriculture. In a nutshell, "agroecological farming practices" can double food production in many regions. These science-based practices empower local communities with their foods, which puts major corporate enterprises out - so, expect them to fight these conclusions.
Next, California Watch reports on a Pacific Institute report on nitrates in California's Central Valley groundwater... we've all known it's been there for years, but this report attempts to quantify the human impacts.
My view on the Central Valley, my second home, is that its social, political, and economic infrastructure is effectively a 3rd World country, a fiefdom for a handful of extraordinarily (and inordinately) powerful people. Pile this report on top of the reports on asthma, air quality, cancers, unemployment, working conditions, transportation, income inequality, etc. And if you are so inclined, please pray for the Valley.
The L.A. Times reports on Republicans using the budget in California to dismantle our environmental regulations. Please, conservative conservationists, keep up the calls to legislators, letting them know that this is not your value. The major law usually attacked is CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), which, in a case of powerful irony, is just about the only transparency-in-government law out there, and is also a law very often used by companies to keep out competition from industrial growth.
Looking at our economic and fiscal conditions, it's safe to say that these regulations have not had an economic impact on our State to any great extent, especially in relation to our quality of life, nor in comparison to more lax states like, say, Texas, whose budget deficit is larger than ours in absolute terms and in relative terms ($27 billion in Texas vs. $26.6 billion in California). Far larger an impact on our quality of life has been our decision to stop funding infrastructure like transportation, schools, and energy.
And, speaking to California's impact on the rest of America, it looks like our Congress has decided to run its budget show like we do here in the Golden State.
That's it for now. I'll try to get back into the swing of things, but first, I'd like a full night's sleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)