Climate Change and Political Will

The following post was printed (in nearly the same form as below) as a Letter to Editor in The Daily Gazette on Wednesday, March 14, 2012.

The members of Schenectady Torch Club got a sober reminder last Thursday night (March 8, 2012) about the precarious nature of the earth’s climate from Dr. Ryan Torn of the University at Albany, SUNY.  Dr. Torn, an atmospheric scientist, carefully explained the various forces that determine the earth’s climate.  He clarified the causes of dominant air and ocean currents, their variability from season to season and around the globe, and the fact that small changes in these forces can make a large difference in weather patterns.  Dr. Torn emphasized the science of what we know about these forces and how they affect the overall budget of energy the earth receives from the sun.

It became clear that the greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and hydrocarbons such as methane) being released into the atmosphere starting with the industrial age are helping trap some of the heat that would have escaped to space.  However, the increase in the earth’s average surface temperature accounts only for a fraction of this heat.  The rest of the heat is being trapped in the oceans and are released only very slowly.  Thus, if human beings stopped today to release any more greenhouse gases, the earth’s average surface temperature would continue to increase for many more years.

Despite these established facts which are accepted by over 95% of scientists, forces in our culture keep us from making any reasonable progress to address this challenge.  For one of the most advanced countries in the world that has benefited so much from science and technology, and has led so much of the technological progress, the lack of national will to address global climate change is beyond my comprehension.

Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party (October 10, 2011)

Much has been written about similarities between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party.  Some have suggested that the occupiers are the left’s answer to Tea Partiers.  I see thing differently.

Tea Party dogma holds that government has gotten out of hand.  It has become too big and too intrusive.  They want to make government small, and they want to be able to conduct their lives without a government that tells them what they can and what they cannot do.  They just don’t want government.

Occupy Wall Street objects to who controls our government, and how the power of money is used to make the government work pretty well for the richest among us.  They want to return control of the government to “the other 99%,” meaning most of us.

One more thing… it is clear that the Tea Partiers have had a lot of funding from the Koch Brothers.  In fact, without such funding, they could not have possibly been able to get as far as they did in terms of organizing to the point of bringing our government to a virtual deadlock.  There is no such source of funding (that I know of) associated with the Occupy movement.

Creditworthiness of the United States

The debt of the United States has now been downgraded by a major credit rating agency.  Here are my thoughts about why this happened.

To my knowledge, for the first time in the history of the United States, extending the debt limit of our country has been made conditional to reaching some kind of political agreement.  The republicans insisted on this, mostly due to pressure brought upon them by the Tea Party.  They seem to think that honoring our debt obligations should be contingent on our partisan political behavior.  The thinking of S&P seems to be that since US’s creditworthiness is now tied to achieving specific kinds of political agreements, the risks of default are clearly greater.  I cannot fault S&P for this analysis.

I can, however, find fault with the republicans who chose to politicize US’s debt limit.  After all, the debt limit is a consequence of past political agreements in the form of bills.  Think of going to wars without funding them, and worse, reducing revenue by collecting less taxes at the same time.

I can also find fault with President Obama for going along with the republican game.  I wish he would have said, even once that “The United States will always meet its debt obligations despite these political charades.  I will not support any side deals in order to raise the debt limit.”  He should have let the republicans take the entire blame for creating a totally unnecessary crisis.  The consequences of a government shut-down would have been grim but the country would have come out of it stronger.

Addendun – August 8, 2011

Insightful comments by Paul Krugman come to the same conclusions as above, although he does not directly criticize President Obama.

More on how to create jobs

Here is a paragraph from an AP story, dated yesterday:

– Companies remain reluctant to spend the $1.9 trillion in cash they’ve accumulated, especially in the United States, which would create jobs. They’re unconvinced that consumers are ready to spend again with the vigor they showed before the recession, and they are worried about uncertainty in U.S. government policies.

Click here for the full article.  This provides more evidence supporting my last post that what drives job creation is NOT business success or company performance or profits.  It is demand for products.  To increase demand, we need to put more money in the pocket of middle-income and lower-income families, as these are the folks who will spend it, creating demand.

Bottom line is that cutting taxes for businesses is NOT what creates jobs.  Fixing the worsening rich – poor income gap is.

Here’s a myth… tax cuts create jobs; July 16, 2011

OK, I can’t stay out of the national debt and deficit discussion any longer.  What is most exasperating in this process is the Republican claim that tax cuts create jobs.  At best this is just a theory.  More realistically, it is a theory that has been proven wrong, or definitely not proven at all.  The only part of it that might ring true is that international companies have an incentive to amass their incomes and profits in countries that penalizes them the least.  It is also a theory that supports a libertarian streak of having government take less of our money.

The truth of the matter is that companies do not hire when their taxes are reduced.  Companies hire when demand for their products and services grow, requiring a larger work force to meet this demand.  The irony here is that reducing taxes on the very rich contributes to the growing income disparity.  The reduction of number of people in the middle-income brackets directly affects demand for products and services companies produce.  So, keep this up and less and less demand in products and services leads to fewer jobs.  Why is this so hard to understand?

It is disappointing and disheartening to see the Democratic Party and President Obama so utterly unable to counter Republican false claims.  The mantra “tax cuts create jobs” has become part of the language that is not even questioned. Democrats and liberals have been totally unable to create a vocabulary to claim a truth that is theirs.  I am not smart enough to understand why this is so, but I do recognize that liberals have failed to even make the argument.  And where is President Obama in all of this?  Is there anything he really believes in to be true and worth fighting for, or is it all solving problems the two sides can agree on?

As usual, I have more questions than answers.  But one answer that I do have is this:  our biggest economic problem is the growing disparity of incomes, leading to reduced demand for product and services the “masses” used to be able to afford and want.  It is very bad for the rich to grow this disparity even further.  A tax increase for those whose taxable income (not gross income) is over $250,000 is a small payment to assure that they can keep their wealth.  Otherwise, what their entrepreneurial companies make will not have a market.

They lie – it’s that simple. April 19, 2011

The following was my letter to editor published in the Gazette yesterday.

In evaluating our public officials and how well they represent us, it is best to focus on the merits of policies and ideas, and not on personal characterizations or motivations.  However, our public officials make this difficult.

Case in point is the promise made by many New York State legislators during the last campaign that they would support a non-partisan redistricting commission to draw the new district lines.  Now that the republicans have regained the majority in the state senate, all of them are reneging on this promise.

In particular, I attended several campaign events during the last election season in which my state senator Hugh Farley supported the non-partisan commission.  He now says he wants a constitutional amendment that cannot possibly become effective until the next cycle, 10 years from now!

I just cannot understand how he could look us straight in our eyes and lie.  To make things worse, we keep electing him and people like him to office year after year.

One measure of a good budget, April 13, 2011.

Tonight, President Obama will put some ideas on the table about the national budget.  About time.  I was very disappointed when he totally ignored the recommendations of his own National Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  Now we have the Paul Ryan proposals which are so extreme that they cannot be taken seriously, although Ryan is taking some credit for at least having the guts for saying something.  So my question is:  “what are the elements of a good budget”?

I will leave the full answer to others who know a lot more about these subjects than I do.  Undoubtedly, there are many.  Of the top of my head, here a re a few:

• How well we protect the national security of our country?
• What do we do to have more energy independence (hence more national security)?
• How do we make sure there are good jobs for everyone?
• How do we take care of those who cannot afford (not because of laziness) decent food, shelter and health care?
• How do we play our responsible part for protecting the environment?
• How do we promote education for young and old (especially the very young where it makes the most difference)?

There are probably many more, but you get the idea.

What I look for in a budget is one more thing that we hardly talk about, at least in the context of a budget.  And that is, the growing disparity of income and wealth in America.  For a thoughtful discussion of this problem, see Timothy Noah’s 10-part series on this subject. Basically, I believe that any proposed national budget has to have an analysis attached to it that projects how it affects this growing inequality.

I hasten to add that a budget is not the sole factor in income inequality.  However, it in one factor that cannot be ignored.  The budget elements that determine what we do with education, job creation, energy policy, environmental policy, etc., all affect income inequality.

So, I will be listening to President Obama’s speech and try to tease out whether it contributes positively or negatively to this important problem.  Oh yes, I should have said that growing inequality is a problem… a problem that has historically led to the collapse of nations as the masses (middle class) sense that the system no longer works for them, but for the super-rich who seem to be controlling everything.

Ultimately, this is the challenge we face in our national security.

GE and taxes – what is the problem? March 29, 2011.

The New York Times reported a few days ago that GE managed to pay no corporate income taxes in 2010. You can see the Times story here. In fairness, here’s GE’s side of the story. In interest of full disclosure, I am a retiree of GE. I would like to address this issue here, but I will not be analyzing whether GE paid any taxes or whether the taxes it paid was fair. What I would like to do is to explore whether there is a problem here and what that problem is.

So, what is the problem with the taxes GE paid (or not paid)?

I come right to the conclusion. There is definitely a problem, but the problem is not with the behavior of corporations, like GE, that hire hundreds of smart of lawyers and accountants to make sure of two things:

1. That they are paying their taxes according to the laws without paying unnecessarily too much.

2. That they lobby and make clear to whoever makes the tax laws what the tax laws should be, or what exemptions they should enjoy.

I do not blame corporations for doing this. Why not? Here we have a legislature that establishes laws for all of us, including corporations and at the same time invites all of us to lobby them about what we want. But our representatives are partial to those who lobby them and at the same time make large campaign contributions to them. This is the problem that I see.

If this is not corruption, I don’t know what it is, and I don’t know what corruption is.

The problem is the fully legal corruption inherent in our political system.

If you do not accept that this is a corrupt process, you might as well stop reading. But if you do think something is wrong here, you will need to move to the next question: How do we eliminate this corruption?

The only way this system will change is through campaign finance laws. As a democracy, we need to invest in the democratic process to assure that every single citizen will have a fair voice, but not a limited voice based on what they can afford. There is no place in the Constitution that promises more favorable treatment to those who throw money at political campaigns. This is purely a capitalistic invention to make money the currency of political action and power.

The root of the problem is with the undue influence of money in our political process.

So, what are we to do about this problem? Well, there are many things we could do. I have been an active promoter of public funding of campaigns, also known as Voter-Owned Elections. The basic philosophy is that once we have a legitimate candidate who has significant enough public support, public funds should be available for the candidate’s campaign.

Another thing we could do is to allow access to free media for political purposes. I don’t mean oodles of political commercials the way we see them today. I do mean informative programs that allow the candidates to express their ideas and answer citizens’ questions. We have learned how to do such programs in a way that they are informative and non-partisan.

All voters need to own their elections, not only those who spend a lot of money.

Obviously, this will be an uphill battle because people who are enjoying the privileges of the current system, including most legislators do not want to change it. It is up to you, yes YOU, to insist that change be made. This will be a lot more fruitful than complaining about GE or any other company and the lawyers, accountants and lobbyists who work for them. We need to change the rules. Behavior will follow.

Nuclear power: what choice do we make? (March 28, 2011)

To be honest, I would have never thought that I would be writing a blog that reaches the conclusions that I am now expressing here.  What has changed my mind are the unfortunate and disastrous events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, after the earthquake and tsunami of 2011.  I want to be very clear what my current conclusions are and my reasons for them.  So, here we go.

1.  I continue to believe that nuclear power can be an important and significant source of power for mankind.  The importance has risen over the years as the climate change consequences of burning fossil fuels are becoming more clear.

2.  An additional fact that makes nuclear power significant is the dwindling supply of fossil fuels and their geopolitical implications.

3.  Nuclear power can be safe provided that adequate precautions are taken to assure that the reactor fuel and the spent fuel cannot possibly cause any harm.

4.  Theoretically, we know how to take these precautions. Practically, this is a different matter.  As long as the basic motivation behind generating power is the profit motive, we need very strong laws and regulations that force the discipline necessary for safe operation.

5.  Recent events in Japan have shown that even the Japanese, known for being meticulous and detail-oriented, did not even anticipate such a tsunami as the one that just happened.  Furthermore, there is evidence that Tokyo Electric Power executives (owners of the Fukushima plant) were too much interested in protecting their hardware than cooling it with sea water.  The profit motive (or not losing too much) seems to have been a priority consideration.  This is evidence that our human and political systems are not robust enough to guard against a run-away chain reaction.  Do I really have the assurance that this balance is so different in United States or Europe?  I am not convinced.

6.  So I come to the conclusion that although theoretically nuclear power can be safe, our human and political systems get in the way.

7.  Another thing that gets in the way is that we can only plan for problems we can foresee.  The problem with nuclear power is that the consequences of an unforeseen problem can be so devastating that we can never be sure that we have thought of everything.  We can think of very few other inventions that have such dire consequences if a “mistake” is made.

I hope you see where I am coming from.  But I also want to tell you where I am going, i.e., if we are concerned with climate change, and we are not comfortable with nuclear power, where do we turn to to meet our energy demands?

I agree that we must keep a large array of options.  However, I think it just makes sense to exhaust everything we can do with renewable energy (wind, solar and hydro) before choosing an option that requires some sort of fuel.

So how do we make progress?  I would start right here in New York State and offer a generous program of incentives for solar and wind energy.  I would like to see small generation systems, all tied to the grid, all over the state.  These systems could be installed at homes, farms, businesses, and wherever else makes sense.  I would make sure that federal incentives also become available to assure that such systems will spread like wildflowers.  Just think of the jobs we can create in building and maintaining these systems.

New York can become the greenest state in the country.  We already have a leg up because of our unusually high level of hydro power.  We should capitalize on this and show the rest of the country that we can grow responsibly and leave a better future for our children and grand children.

Japan nuclear crisis, March 16, 2011.

Witnessing the events following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan has been heart wrenching.  I have been a supporter of nuclear power as a part of technologies we could use to meet our energy needs and at the same time be mindful of climate change and our national independence.  My support continues despite the events in Japan.  I would like to explain.

I have been surprised and disappointed in Japan’s (and Tokyo Electric Power’s) lack of preparedness for a possible tsunami.  30-ft (and more) waves following a tsunami are not unknown in that region of the world, and I had expected that such an event had been taken into account is the design and location of the Fukushima nuclear reactors’ auxiliary (diesel) power systems.  The response of the reactor systems to the earthquake, as far as I can ascertain at this time, was as it should have been.  However, the loss of power to continue pumping water into the hot reactor necessitated the use of the diesel-fueled auxiliary system.  The tsunami following the earthquake disabled this system leading the the unfolding crisis.

I would have thought that the Japanese, known to be detail-oriented and meticulous, would have been prepared for an unlikely but possible tsunami.  I was clearly wrong.  Not only Japan, but all of humanity will pay a price for this unpreparedness.  Before throwing in the towel and banning nuclear power completely, let’s examine a few facts:

1.  The only other alternative for Japan to produce electric power would have been fossil fuels.  It would all have to be imported, whether it is oil or coal.

2.  The reactors at Fukushima have been operating since 1971, about 40 years.  As far as I know, they have not had any problems or issues during that time.  They are an early design that have now been significantly improved from a safety and redundancy perspective.

3.  Consider the environmental and human consequences of oil drilling (remember the BP Gulf disaster) and the number of coal miners who lose their lives each year. Also, consider the billions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants that were not released into the atmosphere because no fossil fuel was involved.

So, let’s remember that, as long as we want to continue our style of living, and as long as our population continues to increase, we need some power to sustain ourselves.  These things that we want may be unrealistic and unsustainable.  That, however, is a different matter.

My conclusion thus far:  nuclear power remains an alternative that should be on the table.  We need the national will to develop a repository for spent fuel, as this still remains an unsettled and troubling problem.  And of course, we must learn from this recent Japanese disaster and consider the robustness of our safety systems and their back-ups.  Having said this, I also believe that we need to do more, much more, with renewable energy sources, such as hydro, wind, and solar.