Wednesday, July 29, 2009

America's Energy Future

Continuing on the strand of citizens fulfilling their expected role in a contract with government, I'm planning on focusing on energy policy. This has always been a particular interest of mine (though I'm probably not especially informed on it), and I have an interest in pursuing it in the future.

Today's Energy Debate
Having just finished judging some summer camp debate rounds on the convoluted, barely-ekeing-through-the-House (219-212) Democratic-sponsored energy bill that deals mostly with a cap-and-trade policy, I have become convinced that as with many things politicians do, the energy debate has become sidetracked from a purer vision of America's energy future both in the short and long term context.

Ideological supporters of a fresh energy policy seem to be very good at thinking with their hearts on the issue. Many environmental advocacy groups propose radical solutions for the fear that global warming will end us as surely as the upcoming movie 2012 predicts apocalypse at the end of the Mayan calendar. Meanwhile, energy traditionalists seem content and complacent with our tried-and-true energy policies that the American economy has been reliant on for at least a century. When these two sides clash, both accuse the other of wanting to destroy America. This is sadly predictable of ideologues in the age of cable news. So how about (my view of) an honest and not sidetracked assessment of the contemporary energy debate.


There is no doubt (outside of those who fall to the right of the Heritage Foundation) that global warming is leading the global environment down a path towards unpredictable and increasingly inhospitable conditions for mankind. There is also no doubt that moving towards sustainable sources of energy for our power grid will require a painful transition from coal and natural gas. The American Coal Council estimates job loss in the coal and other related industries to occur in terms of millions. Finally, there is no doubt that alternative and sustainable energy sources are a long way from total viability. The American Enterprise Institute cites that renewable sources of energy (not including hydroelectric power) had only a 2.3% American market share in 2007.

So considering that global warming is a problem, nonrenewable energy sources by defintion cannot be used indefinitely, the transition from these sources will inevitably hurt, and that there is a long way to go for viable alternative energy sources - where do we go from here?

Nuclear Power
This is the only non-fossil fuel that has a sustained presence in the American energy market, satisfying 20% of our domestic demand. However, nuclear power also happens to be extremely divisive and cliched in discussion. For example, try to carry on a reasoned discussion about nuclear power without mentioning Chernobyl.

In truth, nuclear power is a safe and reliable source of energy when properly maintained. However, it is enormously expensive to ensure that such standards are met and all insurance against potentially apocalyptic nuclear meltdown occurs (cue aforementioned environmental groups). So let's say for now that nuclear energy is not the easiest way out of our current energy situation.

Energy Efficiency
There are few issues out there that consensus can exist so readily on, and I firmly believe energy efficiency is one of them. However, as with reducing obesity costs in healthcare, it requires individual initiative.

The magazine National Geographic reported in depth on energy efficiency in March 2009. Simple electricity savings in the American home can include reducing usage 8% alone by turning off electronics instead of leaving them on "standby". Further savings can come from using energy efficient appliances and refitting homes with efficient windows and doors to minimize heat loss. However, most Americans polled for the magazine indicated they would not prioritize energy efficiency, especially when disposable income is harder to come by.

To the rescue comes everyone's favorite American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or as you probably have seen referred to ad nauseum in your nightly CNN/MSNBC/FOX watching as "the stimulus package" (or "Obama's Marxist lovefest" for the latter station). But how effective will the ARRA be for energy efficiency? The D.O.E. reports that $2.7 billion in grant money was allocated from the $787 billion total to encourage local government projects in energy efficiency research. So basically, more bureaucracy en route to our true goal.

The political speech poster boy town of Greensburg, Kansas has made huge strides in building a model community of energy efficiency in the wake of a tornado. Such moves are possible by the individual American. Undoubtedly, it will be costly. However, considering buying highly rated appliances, thinking conservatively about gas usage, and even turning off the "standby" electronics can make a dent (just as healthy lifestyles in healthcare) in American energy usage. As a result, we buy ourselves more time in finding practical and effective solutions for energy futures.

International Cooperation
All of this is well and good until the rest of the world comes into focus. Rising powers like China and India seem intent on plowing ahead with fast-paced industrialization. Pressures from conventional powers to reduce emissions and energy usage are as offensive to these countries as it would have been if a large authority came in and asked the United States to stop the Industrial Revolution for a somewhat more intangible higher purpose. Their reluctance is understandable. The climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark this winter will be a key collision of opinions for a chance at future global energy policy.

If diplomats pull the right strings and the right political avenues are taken, the United States could be in a good position to make things happen in the realm of global energy responsiblity. Otherwise, more of us just might accede to the Greenpeace view of an unchecked world future.

Way Down the Road
Time to bring out the 3-D glasses and other trappings of your Back to the Future 1950s culture when considering the mysterious sci-fi nature of future energy solutions. In anywhere from decades to centuries, after all of the current energy situation debate is put to rest by the march of time, some pretty cool things could happen in the providing of power. Among them is nuclear fusion, which is a current government research initiative. Undoubtedly, solutions will arise in the future and will become the accepted permanent solution to energy needs, just as coal must have seemed to people like Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan. However, on the road to that inevitability, we must accept current truths and look forward with a sense of practicality and purpose.

Healthcare Reform and Obesity

Call the title strange, but this is a good example of the various opinions on the ideal interaction between people and their government.

Introduction
To make a generalization, liberals generally expect that the government should be trusted to provide services to the citizenry for the greater good and advancement of society. This can take the form of infrastructure growth, federal grants for college tuition, Social Security, Medicare, or anything that makes a good Reaganite cringe when spoken of in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars. Conservatives generally distrust the government in providing these services, preferring instead to hearken to individualism and the value of work ethic and perseverance in the private interest to yield the greater good and advancement of society. Now, I have a passion for history, so I know that this in no way adequately explains the complex and interwoven strands of political groups and motivations in American history and how various parties have formed to garner their loyalty around a single banner. However, it's a good foundation for addressing this facet of the health care debate.

Popular Opinion
I don't put a lot of trust in poll numbers, because the majority is not inherently right. We have this nice culturally engrained link between popular sovereignty and progress, but that's not so! Furthermore, studying statistics taught me that polls can be very unreliable to boot. Anyway, there is no doubt that most Americans are of the opinion that health care reform is needed. CBS reported in June that, in fact, 72% of Americans support a "public option" for health care. No doubt, like me, most of these respondents have very little idea about the complexities of insurance policy and don't know what they're agreeing to. But what are the implications of this popular opinion, and what can people do about it?

The Cost Debate
The first key issue about the health care debate that has bothered me is the ideological opposition to its cost. There has been a furor between the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the White House on the cost of reforming health care:
"The Congressional Budget Office, standing tall in the face of Democratic outrage, provided analysis that shows the President’s plan will NOT reduce government spending on health care like he said it would, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit – despite tax increases." (Wall Street Journal 7/24/09)

Truthfully, though, health care reform should not be measured in terms of how much it costs, but how much it will save in net terms. The main principle is that the government will attempt to wrangle the growing costs of providing benefits and insurance to an aging American population reliant on specialists and prescription medication. Thus, costs will be reflected in the government, not in the private sector and consumer spending, as they have to this point. The Obama administration claims, according to the New York Times, that its plan will save both households and the nation a sum total of about $2 trillion over ten years. This is where the debate truly lies: in cost with the consideration of savings over time.

Personal Responsibility
Now there is a legitimate political argument over health care. I am inclined to support a government option if it serves to maintain the insurance industry but introduce competition in order to keep insurers honest and reduce their exploitative practices. However, there is more that one can do besides have an opinion on healthcare that will probably only have an effect on Washington if your local Congresspeople are soon up for reelection. One can have personal responsibility.

I've listened to enough oratories through high school speech and debate to know that rhetoric-based calls for social justice and populism can be tiring. I will try to avoid that. However, health care costs to a degree are a direct reflection of one's personal lifestyle. Genetics are the obvious exception, and I have no qualms saying that health care for unavoidable disorders and complications, like Multiple Sclerosis, is justified. I do not believe though, that the government should have the responsibility to insure bad lifestyles. Avoidable obesity is an instance in which the left-wing notion of government-provided services falls short and the more right-wing notion of lack of reliance on the government comes into play, striking a sort of balance.

Here are some facts from a study from the CDC released July 27th in Health Affairs:
"The annual healthcare costs of obesity could be as high as 147 billion dollars for 2008. Obesity is now responsible for 9.1 per cent of annual medical costs compared with 6.5 per cent in 1998.
The medical costs for an obese person are 42 per cent higher than for a person of normal weight. Obesity accounts for 8.5 per cent of Medicare expenditure, 11.8 per cent of Medicaid expenditure, and 12.9 per cent of private insurance expenditure."
To use the oft-quoted John F. Kennedy, "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." A social contract invokes expectations from both the citizenry and the government. We must not be a complacent populace in considering the health care debate, happy to vote 72% in favor of reform while sitting idly by. Promoting healthy lifestyles and countering obesity, especially in children, can make a dent in the cost and help the savings of healthcare in the long run. This is a bipartisan issue that requires no governmental action whatsoever, but can have the result of making the costs of a change in the healthcare more palatable.
Moving Forward
In considering policy options, the temptation can be to go for the convoluted, working the tight spaces of Washington political alliances and forging an imitation of Hegelian synthesis. Ted Kennedy has been the icon of that sort of bipartisanship. Assuredly it has its place. But how about a simpler way to cut a tenth of healthcare reform costs off instead of challenges by the fiscal conservative camp to reduce costs by nickels and dimes in whatever ardent health care reformers are willing to drop? Americans can accomplish this. It just requires living up to our end of the exchange of rights and responsibilities with the government.

"Hello, World!"

With this posting I officially mark my re-entry into the rank and file of the desk-chair blogger. Blogging is a fascinating medium for expressing information, but it is not without its drawbacks. While it allows anyone with a decent internet connection to express their views to the world at large, there is nonetheless encouragement to do nothing more than shout (figuratively, of course) to the world a jumble of incoherent and irrational opinions. Therefore, I will strive to maintain a sense of intellectual honesty and coherency in my blogging.

I would be inclined to say that this resolution instantly lifts this blog above a good number of other blogs out there. However, as we all know, there is a large gap between the intent and what will actually occur. Wait-and-see seems like a good approach here.

With that in mind, I'm going to go for a "hello, world!" posting that will indicate the direction and mentality I'll work for in future blogs. Kind of like an inaugural address, right? I do wantthough to actually work with these guidelines, unlike the friendly rhetorical and political world of campaign promises expressed via inaugural address.

Empiricism
I don't possess more than a layman's working knowledge of philosophy (which may change over the course of college), but there are certain concepts that I adhere to. The first is my belief in our invariable shaping of our own subjective realities by experience. One of the most applicable quotes for me here comes from Orwell in 1984: "Men's minds are infinitely malleable." Therefore, I strive to be very cautious in being evaluative, especially of other people, because I can't hope to understand in full what leads them to their own personal beliefs. As a result, I will avoid speaking in absolutes and label generalizations as such when I make them.

Faith
A common question that would arise is how can I be firmly set on variable understandings between people and still consider myself a person of faith? I've been told that I'm inevitably becoming more atheistic as I learn more and question more about the nature of reality. There is no debate that the latter part of that statement is true. However, whenever I want to believe that my own questioning process somehow debunks faith, or God, or an objective truth, I remind myself at that point that the notion of faith incorporates that it is human and inevitable to doubt and find faith illogical. I'll say it directly: faith and logic don't get along. Empirically, however, our logic is colored by our own experiences, and can't be trusted to be any less subjective than our perception itself. This is where I am compelled to trust in the transcendent nature of faith, and how it takes many forms for different people. There is only one thing, then, that warrants no further explanation beyond the statement itself: "I am the way and the truth and the life." (John 14:6)

Optimism
It is a strong tendency of mine to be sentimental and optimistic. A large part of this stems from my own youth and relative innocence. I've never had anyone closer than a great-grandparent die through the end of high school, and never had to sustain life-threatening injury, or witness a near-total failure of reason and dehumanization in my personal life. So in reading what I write, understand that's where I come from. However, as a result of this tendency, I am firmly convinced that measured optimism stemming from a basic trust in people is a necessity to believing in progress in all levels of one's world - from personal morality to global social development.

Emotion
While compassion can be a great strength, it can also be a tremendous vulnerability. On a base level, people often surrender their rationality in order to "follow their heart" in the most Disney-esque way possible. I believe that this route, while deepening our experiences and enriching our relationships, sometimes leads people to become exploited and directed towards certain ideas because they want to believe something at the expense of reason. Perhaps I'm being intellectually lazy in making this statement, but I feel that each person's emotion and reason can be a personal strength and weakness and as a result, the two elements can mesh together in a personalized way that brings the greatest clarity. Does anybody achieve this state of enlightenment? Doubtful. Nonetheless, just as perfect love is unattainable by human endeavors, it is still something I must strive for in my life.

Irrationality
More times than not, people are simply irrational and act on false assumptions or petty motivations. This is something I have struggled to accept, but must. My optimism resides, however, in the ability of people to recover from these shortcomings. It seems to me that much of recent cultural development promotes self-absorption and irrationality, but that is another subject for a another time.

Basically this is my context and the launchpoint for everything I'll write. Future entries probably won't be as contemplative as this one, and I have a tendency to be sarcastic, but this entry needed to be what it was. So - "Hello, world! I'm Pearce."