© 2011 Joshua Stark
The Sacramento Bee blog Capitol Alert has a post on a letter from four Republicans in talks with California's Governor over a budget deal.
The Republicans explain the types of reform that must happen in order for them to vote to allow Californians the chance to vote to keep taxes at their current levels.
I found page 3 of the letter - on regulatory reform - fascinating. In particular, I am blown away that the way Republicans hope to shrink government and reign in spending is by creating a brand-new Office of Economic and Regulatory Analysis.
I don't get it.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Sound of One Shoe Dropping
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Sadly, as the New York Times reports, the catastrophe hitting California's State Park System is more of a nationwide phenomenon.
To sum it up, parks around the country have had few funds, and in the past few years, even these have dried up. In California, we are looking at closing 70 parks, and probably radically altering fees. Closing 70 parks. This is unprecedented, and sad.
Think about this: What do we have to remember about the 20th Century's massive economic meltdown? Many things, of course, but just about the only physical representations are the "C's" park units - parks whose infrastructure was designed and built by the CCC, a Depression-era attempt to put young men to work. These park buildings are often jewels of rough-hewn timber and stone trail steps, with a unique aesthetic, beautifully integrated into the rugged park scenery. In their day, they were beacons of hope to aspiring American visitors, and good, honest work for young men.
What will our legacy be for this economic downturn? According to the NY Times, "Customers... is the new buzzword", the notion that parks are selling goods and services, competing with the likes of Six Flags, WalMart, Sierra Pacific Lumber and Chevron. Gone is the notion that visiting our most treasured natural and historical spots is an American rite and right. Gone is the notion of "visitors". "Customers" is the new buzzword.
A few years back, I stood up during a National Park Service-sponsored conference on visitor use and defended the idea of visitors using parks. Amid concerns from park staff about a sizeable reduction in visitation to parks, a well-meaning professor had made the comment that fewer boots on the ground meant fewer impacts to the resource.
My response: If visitors aren't using it, if Americans and other tourists aren't there to enjoy what we are trying to protect, then they will no longer care, and others will use them - they will log them, dam them, mine them, and drill them. They will get used, just not in the same way. We have to encourage appropriate use, to build appreciation for and a desire to protect these amazing places, by encouraging appropriate access.
Today (from the Times): "One of the most inventive efforts is in Ohio, where the Legislature is set to approve a bill that would allow drilling for oil and gas in the shale beneath some state parks. Lawmakers say parks would directly benefit from revenues."
As a Western American, I know our Right to Freely Move through Our Lands. California is half-owned by the federal government, in the form of US Forest Service and BLM lands. These lands have always been free (notwithstanding the Los Padres Nat'l. Forest fiasco), and it is as American as apple pie that they stay free to appropriate uses. However, parks have usually had minimal fees - they require higher standards of protection and more intense management because they guard our most cherised natural and historical places. But without funding from government, these places are pressured to increase fees to draconian levels, where they can, and pressured to close - or be opened up to extractive uses - where they cannot. "Customers" is the new buzzword, as unAmerican as that is - limiting access to the history of how we became the freest society on Earth.
I am sure I've opined in previous posts about the sad affairs of California's State Park interpretive (educational) system - how I had to quit my best job as a park interpreter because we couldn't afford to live on a 3/4-time salary, how my park units saw one million people per year (1/3rd the visitation of Yosemite), but only had one 3/4 time interpretive position.
For a quick reminder, here is the Mission of the California State Park System:
"To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation."
Sadly, we are way past just underfunding the very mission of the park system. We are actually closing parks.
We have met our recent economic downturn in a much different way than did our forebears some eighty years ago.
I, for one, am ashamed.
Sadly, as the New York Times reports, the catastrophe hitting California's State Park System is more of a nationwide phenomenon.
To sum it up, parks around the country have had few funds, and in the past few years, even these have dried up. In California, we are looking at closing 70 parks, and probably radically altering fees. Closing 70 parks. This is unprecedented, and sad.
Think about this: What do we have to remember about the 20th Century's massive economic meltdown? Many things, of course, but just about the only physical representations are the "C's" park units - parks whose infrastructure was designed and built by the CCC, a Depression-era attempt to put young men to work. These park buildings are often jewels of rough-hewn timber and stone trail steps, with a unique aesthetic, beautifully integrated into the rugged park scenery. In their day, they were beacons of hope to aspiring American visitors, and good, honest work for young men.
What will our legacy be for this economic downturn? According to the NY Times, "Customers... is the new buzzword", the notion that parks are selling goods and services, competing with the likes of Six Flags, WalMart, Sierra Pacific Lumber and Chevron. Gone is the notion that visiting our most treasured natural and historical spots is an American rite and right. Gone is the notion of "visitors". "Customers" is the new buzzword.
A few years back, I stood up during a National Park Service-sponsored conference on visitor use and defended the idea of visitors using parks. Amid concerns from park staff about a sizeable reduction in visitation to parks, a well-meaning professor had made the comment that fewer boots on the ground meant fewer impacts to the resource.
My response: If visitors aren't using it, if Americans and other tourists aren't there to enjoy what we are trying to protect, then they will no longer care, and others will use them - they will log them, dam them, mine them, and drill them. They will get used, just not in the same way. We have to encourage appropriate use, to build appreciation for and a desire to protect these amazing places, by encouraging appropriate access.
Today (from the Times): "One of the most inventive efforts is in Ohio, where the Legislature is set to approve a bill that would allow drilling for oil and gas in the shale beneath some state parks. Lawmakers say parks would directly benefit from revenues."
----------
I am sure I've opined in previous posts about the sad affairs of California's State Park interpretive (educational) system - how I had to quit my best job as a park interpreter because we couldn't afford to live on a 3/4-time salary, how my park units saw one million people per year (1/3rd the visitation of Yosemite), but only had one 3/4 time interpretive position.
For a quick reminder, here is the Mission of the California State Park System:
"To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation."
Sadly, we are way past just underfunding the very mission of the park system. We are actually closing parks.
We have met our recent economic downturn in a much different way than did our forebears some eighty years ago.
I, for one, am ashamed.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
A classy piece from a good man
© 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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)