Get E-Mail Updates

Clean Energy is the 'Space Race' of Our Age

Last Tuesday, as a member of Catholics United, I joined countless others in Washington, D.C., to lobby on behalf of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454 ). This bill, which now will go before the Senate after narrowly passing 219-212 in the House of Representatives, promises to curb pollution in America, increase green jobs, and protect the poorest of the poor in the country who may not be able to afford the expenses accompanying a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy resources.

More specifically, the bill:

  • requires that U.S. industries reduce their polluting emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050.
  • seeks to make new and existing buildings more energy efficient.
  • plans to invest an estimated $90 billion in clean energy by 2025.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act would place the U.S. among world leaders in developing sustainable energy and technologies. It would also lend the U.S. global legitimacy as it prepares to enter the Copenhagen climate discussions in December. This is essential since the U.S. has fallen behind clean energy leaders in the "space race" of our time.

Though the bill is not perfect, it is a start and could be modified later. The concern now is that American Clean Energy and Security Act passes from the Senate to President Obama's desk. It is my hope that our Republican and Democrat senators recognize the importance of this bill, which, in my opinion, is severely overdue.

In 1982, physicist Fritjof Capra prophetically wrote in The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture that "for the first time we have to face the very real threat of extinction of the human race and of all life on this planet." Among the many threats to life, he cited the mass production of nuclear weapons, the then multi-billion dollar defense budget, and the various environmental threats enveloping the planet, such as blankets of smog covering cities and the plethora of harmful chemicals found in food, water, and the air. This deterioration of the environment, he mentioned, resulted in declining physical and mental health.

Twenty years prior to Capra's work, in 1962, marine-biologist Rachel Carson's landmark book Silent Spring alerted the world to the harmful effects of pesticides (most notably DDT) on humans and the natural world's ability to bring forth life. Writing in the introduction to the fortieth anniversary edition of Silent Spring, Linda Lear praises Carson's work for having initiated "a transformation in the relationship between humans and the natural world and [having] stirred an awakening of public environmental consciousness."

With nearly six decades of growing knowledge and evidence about environmental degradation and its consequences for future generations, what are our politicians waiting for? The time for action is now. After the American Clean Energy and Security passed the House, President Obama said:

My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth.

Will our children and grandchildren look upon us as innovators who do not fear the unknown? Or will they view us as supporters of the status quo who wait for the rest of the world to take charge in the "space race" of our age?

portrait-cesar-baldelomar

César J. Baldelomar is the executive director of Pax Romana Center for International Study of Catholic Social Teaching and blogs at www.holisticthoughts.com. He is editor of the Notebook Magazine, and he will begin graduate studies at Harvard Divinity School in the fall.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: lumens

06-29-2009 @ 2:30pm

Space race of our time is an apt comparison. This is a symbolic, costly program that will have virtually no measurable impact on our climate.

The reference to Silent Spring is also apt. DDT was never determined to have a measurable impact on human populations, but international bans remain decades later, having caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

If the Cap and Trade bill hasn't been modified yet, why does the author think it will be modified later, when it is revealed to be ineffective? Miscellaneous calls for "action" are unpersuasive.

by: justintime

07-01-2009 @ 1:11am

Hey Kevin!

Breaking News!

Norm Coleman finally concedes,
after the RNC spent two million dollars on this loser,
just to keep Al Franken out of the Senate.

SENATOR AL FRANKEN!

Let's have a big round of applause for the patience of Progressives!

by: xfree9

06-29-2009 @ 9:35pm

Apt comparisons. Kudos!

As for the modifications, don't you realize that the government always acts swiftly when its programs and initiatives aren't working, and they instantly improve them with better legislation and newer initiatives. It's all about regulation, regulation, regulation. Don't you get it yet?

by: lumens

06-29-2009 @ 2:30pm

Space race of our time is an apt comparison. This is a symbolic, costly program that will have virtually no measurable impact on our climate.

The reference to Silent Spring is also apt. DDT was never determined to have a measurable impact on human populations, but international bans remain decades later, having caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

If the Cap and Trade bill hasn't been modified yet, why does the author think it will be modified later, when it is revealed to be ineffective? Miscellaneous calls for "action" are unpersuasive.

by: wayouthere

06-30-2009 @ 1:29am

Whenever I read about energy, I think of the invention and story of Stan Meyers and his water-powered car. Stan was a devout Christian man who received death threats and offers of bribes to keep his technology to himself. He died mysteriously of food poisoning. In one his videos he said he trusted God to look after him. I believe the technology exists to free us from so many things but it won't happen as long as we have a government that operates on the basis of bribery. But in the meantime the body count soars.

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 9:55am

Fréderic Bastiat wrote in his book, "The Law," that there are three options to government funding:

1. The few plunder the many
2. Everybody plunders everybody
3. Nobody plunders anybody

Currently we have a mix of 1 and 2. You're right, technology improves mankind's condition in life. Government attempts to use technology for our good, but the law of supply, demand, and limited resources prohibits that from happening.

by: pawheel

06-30-2009 @ 2:04pm

A quote from above; "It's all about regulation, regulation, regulation. Don't you get it yet?"
In my opinion, looking at the de-regulation method used for the last 30 years, and the damage done, I'll take regulation (reluctantly). The amounts of mercury in almost all of our bodies these days is disgusting, for example. And don't get me started about economic de-regulation, we are all feeling that pain, except the bankers and the Congressmen that they own...

I would love to have all the money I ever needed, as we all would. But I can't accept that anyone would have a problem getting cleaner air and water for what will most likely be a few dollars a week to control it.

Also, this bill is supported by the coal and other industries that are the polluters. That should tell you something that they now claim to be for a bill that they spent millions lobbying against it ever getting voted on. And there are dozens more coal plants being planned in the coming years in this country. Please don't say "clean coal" because it doesn't exist. It's like in the 50s at the beginning of Nuclear power. We were told that the waste problem would be solved by future scientists. Not yet anyway.
How about Cap and Trade? The industries can keep polluting and poisoning the local community because another company elsewhere has reduced theirs.
We're not reducing pollution, we're MOVING it :) Kinda like what we did a long time ago when we realized that polluting smokestacks from coal and others were plolluting local water and air. We made taller smokestacks so the pollution would go away! So it went to the next state instead of the next town.

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 2:15pm

Not sure what deregulation you're talking about. To my knowledge, there has been an increase in federal government regulation, and some state governments have increased the amount of regulation. Look at California's situation. They may be the greenest state, but they're also out of money.

"CleanER coal" would be a better term; nothing's perfect yet, and cleaner energy is the goal, of course, but it won't happen overnight.

As for the mercury in your body, nobody forced you to consume products with mercury. You may have been ignorant about particular products (as we all perhaps were and sometimes are), but that doesn't mean a government regulatory agency is the solution. In fact, it can lead to a false trust of food and/or medications.

I liked your point about moving pollution rather than reducing it. Unfortunately, when we made taller smokestacks, we didn't lose jobs because it didn't require people to lose a job. This time around, manufacturers will be able to relocate to cheaper countries like India and China, who are all too eager for their business. On this front, I don't blame them, and I actually hope they go there, because there are millions and millions of very poor folk in India who barely make it, and could use the opportunity for jobs. We'll survive here in America, we'll just have to live with a Ford or Toyota instead of our Lexus or SUV. In India, they need more opportunities to work. But that's another story...

by: xfree9

06-29-2009 @ 9:35pm

Apt comparisons. Kudos!

As for the modifications, don't you realize that the government always acts swiftly when its programs and initiatives aren't working, and they instantly improve them with better legislation and newer initiatives. It's all about regulation, regulation, regulation. Don't you get it yet?

by: pawheel

06-30-2009 @ 5:22pm

"Not sure what deregulation you're talking about."

In my view, Deregulation has bee the mantra sine the 80s; the financial industries have run wild in at least the last 10 years or more: repeal of the Glass Stegal act was a big one that seems to have made a huge mess of things for example. Pollution laws had been getting gutted if not rewritten to make them weaker, then the departments that are supposed to monitor them get reduced or ignored - EPA being a good example of that. That one goes back to at least Reagan. His EPA administrator (Ann Burford?) was known to take polluters to lunch, literally, to ask them what we can do for them. For some reason I remember reading that in either Time or Newsweek magazine.

I have to hand it to you for looking at jobs going overseas as a good thing, because it is for the receiving country hopefully. But I dislike that they take all the work to another country, and still get to claim all the tax benefits of an American company.

"To my knowledge, there has been an increase in federal government regulation, and some state governments have increased the amount of regulation. Look at California's situation. They may be the greenest state, but they're also out of money."

Well, California has been kknown to lead the country by being first in many ways. Let's hope going broke is not one of them! If there has been an increase in State regulation it has been at least in part because they have to pick up on some things that may have been previously coming from the Feds, especially funding for things.

"As for the mercury in your body, nobody forced you to consume products with mercury. You may have been ignorant about particular products (as we all perhaps were and sometimes are), but that doesn't mean a government regulatory agency is the solution. In fact, it can lead to a false trust of food and/or medications."

Until recently, I didn't know there was much mercury in seafood for example. I have pretty much eliminated seafood from my diet, as well as beef and pork (growth hormones, antibiotics). I'd say pretty soon I'll be just eating peanut butter sandwiches, but that turned up tainted briefly last year too :)
Yes it could lead to false trust, if you are one to trust the government. But I don't know who else would be able to have the reach to be able to regulate it.

Look, the government and industrial farming is helping me eat healthier...

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 5:40pm

Let's hope going broke is not one of them!

Well, actually, the United Stated government is just as broke, but it has the Fed in its pockets, printing money and inflating our dollar. California has no such legal authority to do this (which is why it'd be great if the Fed were audited and then abolished).

But I don't know who else would be able to have the reach to be able to regulate it.
Just because government is "bigger" does not mean it is the only capable entity. Look up UL (United Laboratories), which works with electronics companies to ensure their safety. Wal-Mart won't even sell a product without a UL endorsement. As for food, there are many agencies who could do a better job endorsing food, just like certain agencies endorse colleges and universities, health clinics, and other arenas of commerce. The market is not perfect, but it does produce less waste, and oftentimes (if not always) provides more generously than the government does.

by: wayouthere

06-30-2009 @ 1:29am

Whenever I read about energy, I think of the invention and story of Stan Meyers and his water-powered car. Stan was a devout Christian man who received death threats and offers of bribes to keep his technology to himself. He died mysteriously of food poisoning. In one his videos he said he trusted God to look after him. I believe the technology exists to free us from so many things but it won't happen as long as we have a government that operates on the basis of bribery. But in the meantime the body count soars.

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 9:55am

Fréderic Bastiat wrote in his book, "The Law," that there are three options to government funding:

1. The few plunder the many
2. Everybody plunders everybody
3. Nobody plunders anybody

Currently we have a mix of 1 and 2. You're right, technology improves mankind's condition in life. Government attempts to use technology for our good, but the law of supply, demand, and limited resources prohibits that from happening.

by: pawheel

06-30-2009 @ 2:04pm

A quote from above; "It's all about regulation, regulation, regulation. Don't you get it yet?"
In my opinion, looking at the de-regulation method used for the last 30 years, and the damage done, I'll take regulation (reluctantly). The amounts of mercury in almost all of our bodies these days is disgusting, for example. And don't get me started about economic de-regulation, we are all feeling that pain, except the bankers and the Congressmen that they own...

I would love to have all the money I ever needed, as we all would. But I can't accept that anyone would have a problem getting cleaner air and water for what will most likely be a few dollars a week to control it.

Also, this bill is supported by the coal and other industries that are the polluters. That should tell you something that they now claim to be for a bill that they spent millions lobbying against it ever getting voted on. And there are dozens more coal plants being planned in the coming years in this country. Please don't say "clean coal" because it doesn't exist. It's like in the 50s at the beginning of Nuclear power. We were told that the waste problem would be solved by future scientists. Not yet anyway.
How about Cap and Trade? The industries can keep polluting and poisoning the local community because another company elsewhere has reduced theirs.
We're not reducing pollution, we're MOVING it :) Kinda like what we did a long time ago when we realized that polluting smokestacks from coal and others were plolluting local water and air. We made taller smokestacks so the pollution would go away! So it went to the next state instead of the next town.

by: justintime

06-30-2009 @ 11:11pm

Hey Kevin!

Breaking News!

Norm Coleman finally concedes,
after the RNC spent a million dollars on this loser,
just to keep Al Franken out of the Senate.

SENATOR AL FRANKEN!

Let's have a big round of applause for the patience of Progressives!

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 2:15pm

Not sure what deregulation you're talking about. To my knowledge, there has been an increase in federal government regulation, and some state governments have increased the amount of regulation. Look at California's situation. They may be the greenest state, but they're also out of money.

"CleanER coal" would be a better term; nothing's perfect yet, and cleaner energy is the goal, of course, but it won't happen overnight.

As for the mercury in your body, nobody forced you to consume products with mercury. You may have been ignorant about particular products (as we all perhaps were and sometimes are), but that doesn't mean a government regulatory agency is the solution. In fact, it can lead to a false trust of food and/or medications.

I liked your point about moving pollution rather than reducing it. Unfortunately, when we made taller smokestacks, we didn't lose jobs because it didn't require people to lose a job. This time around, manufacturers will be able to relocate to cheaper countries like India and China, who are all too eager for their business. On this front, I don't blame them, and I actually hope they go there, because there are millions and millions of very poor folk in India who barely make it, and could use the opportunity for jobs. We'll survive here in America, we'll just have to live with a Ford or Toyota instead of our Lexus or SUV. In India, they need more opportunities to work. But that's another story...

by: pawheel

06-30-2009 @ 5:22pm

"Not sure what deregulation you're talking about."

In my view, Deregulation has bee the mantra sine the 80s; the financial industries have run wild in at least the last 10 years or more: repeal of the Glass Stegal act was a big one that seems to have made a huge mess of things for example. Pollution laws had been getting gutted if not rewritten to make them weaker, then the departments that are supposed to monitor them get reduced or ignored - EPA being a good example of that. That one goes back to at least Reagan. His EPA administrator (Ann Burford?) was known to take polluters to lunch, literally, to ask them what we can do for them. For some reason I remember reading that in either Time or Newsweek magazine.

I have to hand it to you for looking at jobs going overseas as a good thing, because it is for the receiving country hopefully. But I dislike that they take all the work to another country, and still get to claim all the tax benefits of an American company.

"To my knowledge, there has been an increase in federal government regulation, and some state governments have increased the amount of regulation. Look at California's situation. They may be the greenest state, but they're also out of money."

Well, California has been kknown to lead the country by being first in many ways. Let's hope going broke is not one of them! If there has been an increase in State regulation it has been at least in part because they have to pick up on some things that may have been previously coming from the Feds, especially funding for things.

"As for the mercury in your body, nobody forced you to consume products with mercury. You may have been ignorant about particular products (as we all perhaps were and sometimes are), but that doesn't mean a government regulatory agency is the solution. In fact, it can lead to a false trust of food and/or medications."

Until recently, I didn't know there was much mercury in seafood for example. I have pretty much eliminated seafood from my diet, as well as beef and pork (growth hormones, antibiotics). I'd say pretty soon I'll be just eating peanut butter sandwiches, but that turned up tainted briefly last year too :)
Yes it could lead to false trust, if you are one to trust the government. But I don't know who else would be able to have the reach to be able to regulate it.

Look, the government and industrial farming is helping me eat healthier...

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 5:40pm

Let's hope going broke is not one of them!

Well, actually, the United Stated government is just as broke, but it has the Fed in its pockets, printing money and inflating our dollar. California has no such legal authority to do this (which is why it'd be great if the Fed were audited and then abolished).

But I don't know who else would be able to have the reach to be able to regulate it.
Just because government is "bigger" does not mean it is the only capable entity. Look up UL (United Laboratories), which works with electronics companies to ensure their safety. Wal-Mart won't even sell a product without a UL endorsement. As for food, there are many agencies who could do a better job endorsing food, just like certain agencies endorse colleges and universities, health clinics, and other arenas of commerce. The market is not perfect, but it does produce less waste, and oftentimes (if not always) provides more generously than the government does.

by: justintime

06-30-2009 @ 11:11pm

Hey Kevin!

Breaking News!

Norm Coleman finally concedes,
after the RNC spent a million dollars on this loser,
just to keep Al Franken out of the Senate.

SENATOR AL FRANKEN!

Let's have a big round of applause for the patience of Progressives!

by: justintime

07-01-2009 @ 1:11am

Hey Kevin!

Breaking News!

Norm Coleman finally concedes,
after the RNC spent two million dollars on this loser,
just to keep Al Franken out of the Senate.

SENATOR AL FRANKEN!

Let's have a big round of applause for the patience of Progressives!

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: lumens

06-29-2009 @ 2:30pm

Space race of our time is an apt comparison. This is a symbolic, costly program that will have virtually no measurable impact on our climate.

The reference to Silent Spring is also apt. DDT was never determined to have a measurable impact on human populations, but international bans remain decades later, having caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

If the Cap and Trade bill hasn't been modified yet, why does the author think it will be modified later, when it is revealed to be ineffective? Miscellaneous calls for "action" are unpersuasive.

by: lumens

06-29-2009 @ 2:30pm

Space race of our time is an apt comparison. This is a symbolic, costly program that will have virtually no measurable impact on our climate.

The reference to Silent Spring is also apt. DDT was never determined to have a measurable impact on human populations, but international bans remain decades later, having caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

If the Cap and Trade bill hasn't been modified yet, why does the author think it will be modified later, when it is revealed to be ineffective? Miscellaneous calls for "action" are unpersuasive.

by: xfree9

06-29-2009 @ 9:35pm

Apt comparisons. Kudos!

As for the modifications, don't you realize that the government always acts swiftly when its programs and initiatives aren't working, and they instantly improve them with better legislation and newer initiatives. It's all about regulation, regulation, regulation. Don't you get it yet?

by: xfree9

06-29-2009 @ 9:35pm

Apt comparisons. Kudos!

As for the modifications, don't you realize that the government always acts swiftly when its programs and initiatives aren't working, and they instantly improve them with better legislation and newer initiatives. It's all about regulation, regulation, regulation. Don't you get it yet?

by: wayouthere

06-30-2009 @ 1:29am

Whenever I read about energy, I think of the invention and story of Stan Meyers and his water-powered car. Stan was a devout Christian man who received death threats and offers of bribes to keep his technology to himself. He died mysteriously of food poisoning. In one his videos he said he trusted God to look after him. I believe the technology exists to free us from so many things but it won't happen as long as we have a government that operates on the basis of bribery. But in the meantime the body count soars.

by: wayouthere

06-30-2009 @ 1:29am

Whenever I read about energy, I think of the invention and story of Stan Meyers and his water-powered car. Stan was a devout Christian man who received death threats and offers of bribes to keep his technology to himself. He died mysteriously of food poisoning. In one his videos he said he trusted God to look after him. I believe the technology exists to free us from so many things but it won't happen as long as we have a government that operates on the basis of bribery. But in the meantime the body count soars.

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 9:55am

Fréderic Bastiat wrote in his book, "The Law," that there are three options to government funding:

1. The few plunder the many
2. Everybody plunders everybody
3. Nobody plunders anybody

Currently we have a mix of 1 and 2. You're right, technology improves mankind's condition in life. Government attempts to use technology for our good, but the law of supply, demand, and limited resources prohibits that from happening.

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 9:55am

Fréderic Bastiat wrote in his book, "The Law," that there are three options to government funding:

1. The few plunder the many
2. Everybody plunders everybody
3. Nobody plunders anybody

Currently we have a mix of 1 and 2. You're right, technology improves mankind's condition in life. Government attempts to use technology for our good, but the law of supply, demand, and limited resources prohibits that from happening.

by: pawheel

06-30-2009 @ 2:04pm

A quote from above; "It's all about regulation, regulation, regulation. Don't you get it yet?"
In my opinion, looking at the de-regulation method used for the last 30 years, and the damage done, I'll take regulation (reluctantly). The amounts of mercury in almost all of our bodies these days is disgusting, for example. And don't get me started about economic de-regulation, we are all feeling that pain, except the bankers and the Congressmen that they own...

I would love to have all the money I ever needed, as we all would. But I can't accept that anyone would have a problem getting cleaner air and water for what will most likely be a few dollars a week to control it.

Also, this bill is supported by the coal and other industries that are the polluters. That should tell you something that they now claim to be for a bill that they spent millions lobbying against it ever getting voted on. And there are dozens more coal plants being planned in the coming years in this country. Please don't say "clean coal" because it doesn't exist. It's like in the 50s at the beginning of Nuclear power. We were told that the waste problem would be solved by future scientists. Not yet anyway.
How about Cap and Trade? The industries can keep polluting and poisoning the local community because another company elsewhere has reduced theirs.
We're not reducing pollution, we're MOVING it :) Kinda like what we did a long time ago when we realized that polluting smokestacks from coal and others were plolluting local water and air. We made taller smokestacks so the pollution would go away! So it went to the next state instead of the next town.

by: pawheel

06-30-2009 @ 2:04pm

A quote from above; "It's all about regulation, regulation, regulation. Don't you get it yet?"
In my opinion, looking at the de-regulation method used for the last 30 years, and the damage done, I'll take regulation (reluctantly). The amounts of mercury in almost all of our bodies these days is disgusting, for example. And don't get me started about economic de-regulation, we are all feeling that pain, except the bankers and the Congressmen that they own...

I would love to have all the money I ever needed, as we all would. But I can't accept that anyone would have a problem getting cleaner air and water for what will most likely be a few dollars a week to control it.

Also, this bill is supported by the coal and other industries that are the polluters. That should tell you something that they now claim to be for a bill that they spent millions lobbying against it ever getting voted on. And there are dozens more coal plants being planned in the coming years in this country. Please don't say "clean coal" because it doesn't exist. It's like in the 50s at the beginning of Nuclear power. We were told that the waste problem would be solved by future scientists. Not yet anyway.
How about Cap and Trade? The industries can keep polluting and poisoning the local community because another company elsewhere has reduced theirs.
We're not reducing pollution, we're MOVING it :) Kinda like what we did a long time ago when we realized that polluting smokestacks from coal and others were plolluting local water and air. We made taller smokestacks so the pollution would go away! So it went to the next state instead of the next town.

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 2:15pm

Not sure what deregulation you're talking about. To my knowledge, there has been an increase in federal government regulation, and some state governments have increased the amount of regulation. Look at California's situation. They may be the greenest state, but they're also out of money.

"CleanER coal" would be a better term; nothing's perfect yet, and cleaner energy is the goal, of course, but it won't happen overnight.

As for the mercury in your body, nobody forced you to consume products with mercury. You may have been ignorant about particular products (as we all perhaps were and sometimes are), but that doesn't mean a government regulatory agency is the solution. In fact, it can lead to a false trust of food and/or medications.

I liked your point about moving pollution rather than reducing it. Unfortunately, when we made taller smokestacks, we didn't lose jobs because it didn't require people to lose a job. This time around, manufacturers will be able to relocate to cheaper countries like India and China, who are all too eager for their business. On this front, I don't blame them, and I actually hope they go there, because there are millions and millions of very poor folk in India who barely make it, and could use the opportunity for jobs. We'll survive here in America, we'll just have to live with a Ford or Toyota instead of our Lexus or SUV. In India, they need more opportunities to work. But that's another story...

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 2:15pm

Not sure what deregulation you're talking about. To my knowledge, there has been an increase in federal government regulation, and some state governments have increased the amount of regulation. Look at California's situation. They may be the greenest state, but they're also out of money.

"CleanER coal" would be a better term; nothing's perfect yet, and cleaner energy is the goal, of course, but it won't happen overnight.

As for the mercury in your body, nobody forced you to consume products with mercury. You may have been ignorant about particular products (as we all perhaps were and sometimes are), but that doesn't mean a government regulatory agency is the solution. In fact, it can lead to a false trust of food and/or medications.

I liked your point about moving pollution rather than reducing it. Unfortunately, when we made taller smokestacks, we didn't lose jobs because it didn't require people to lose a job. This time around, manufacturers will be able to relocate to cheaper countries like India and China, who are all too eager for their business. On this front, I don't blame them, and I actually hope they go there, because there are millions and millions of very poor folk in India who barely make it, and could use the opportunity for jobs. We'll survive here in America, we'll just have to live with a Ford or Toyota instead of our Lexus or SUV. In India, they need more opportunities to work. But that's another story...

by: pawheel

06-30-2009 @ 5:22pm

"Not sure what deregulation you're talking about."

In my view, Deregulation has bee the mantra sine the 80s; the financial industries have run wild in at least the last 10 years or more: repeal of the Glass Stegal act was a big one that seems to have made a huge mess of things for example. Pollution laws had been getting gutted if not rewritten to make them weaker, then the departments that are supposed to monitor them get reduced or ignored - EPA being a good example of that. That one goes back to at least Reagan. His EPA administrator (Ann Burford?) was known to take polluters to lunch, literally, to ask them what we can do for them. For some reason I remember reading that in either Time or Newsweek magazine.

I have to hand it to you for looking at jobs going overseas as a good thing, because it is for the receiving country hopefully. But I dislike that they take all the work to another country, and still get to claim all the tax benefits of an American company.

"To my knowledge, there has been an increase in federal government regulation, and some state governments have increased the amount of regulation. Look at California's situation. They may be the greenest state, but they're also out of money."

Well, California has been kknown to lead the country by being first in many ways. Let's hope going broke is not one of them! If there has been an increase in State regulation it has been at least in part because they have to pick up on some things that may have been previously coming from the Feds, especially funding for things.

"As for the mercury in your body, nobody forced you to consume products with mercury. You may have been ignorant about particular products (as we all perhaps were and sometimes are), but that doesn't mean a government regulatory agency is the solution. In fact, it can lead to a false trust of food and/or medications."

Until recently, I didn't know there was much mercury in seafood for example. I have pretty much eliminated seafood from my diet, as well as beef and pork (growth hormones, antibiotics). I'd say pretty soon I'll be just eating peanut butter sandwiches, but that turned up tainted briefly last year too :)
Yes it could lead to false trust, if you are one to trust the government. But I don't know who else would be able to have the reach to be able to regulate it.

Look, the government and industrial farming is helping me eat healthier...

by: pawheel

06-30-2009 @ 5:22pm

"Not sure what deregulation you're talking about."

In my view, Deregulation has bee the mantra sine the 80s; the financial industries have run wild in at least the last 10 years or more: repeal of the Glass Stegal act was a big one that seems to have made a huge mess of things for example. Pollution laws had been getting gutted if not rewritten to make them weaker, then the departments that are supposed to monitor them get reduced or ignored - EPA being a good example of that. That one goes back to at least Reagan. His EPA administrator (Ann Burford?) was known to take polluters to lunch, literally, to ask them what we can do for them. For some reason I remember reading that in either Time or Newsweek magazine.

I have to hand it to you for looking at jobs going overseas as a good thing, because it is for the receiving country hopefully. But I dislike that they take all the work to another country, and still get to claim all the tax benefits of an American company.

"To my knowledge, there has been an increase in federal government regulation, and some state governments have increased the amount of regulation. Look at California's situation. They may be the greenest state, but they're also out of money."

Well, California has been kknown to lead the country by being first in many ways. Let's hope going broke is not one of them! If there has been an increase in State regulation it has been at least in part because they have to pick up on some things that may have been previously coming from the Feds, especially funding for things.

"As for the mercury in your body, nobody forced you to consume products with mercury. You may have been ignorant about particular products (as we all perhaps were and sometimes are), but that doesn't mean a government regulatory agency is the solution. In fact, it can lead to a false trust of food and/or medications."

Until recently, I didn't know there was much mercury in seafood for example. I have pretty much eliminated seafood from my diet, as well as beef and pork (growth hormones, antibiotics). I'd say pretty soon I'll be just eating peanut butter sandwiches, but that turned up tainted briefly last year too :)
Yes it could lead to false trust, if you are one to trust the government. But I don't know who else would be able to have the reach to be able to regulate it.

Look, the government and industrial farming is helping me eat healthier...

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 5:40pm

Let's hope going broke is not one of them!

Well, actually, the United Stated government is just as broke, but it has the Fed in its pockets, printing money and inflating our dollar. California has no such legal authority to do this (which is why it'd be great if the Fed were audited and then abolished).

But I don't know who else would be able to have the reach to be able to regulate it.
Just because government is "bigger" does not mean it is the only capable entity. Look up UL (United Laboratories), which works with electronics companies to ensure their safety. Wal-Mart won't even sell a product without a UL endorsement. As for food, there are many agencies who could do a better job endorsing food, just like certain agencies endorse colleges and universities, health clinics, and other arenas of commerce. The market is not perfect, but it does produce less waste, and oftentimes (if not always) provides more generously than the government does.

by: xfree9

06-30-2009 @ 5:40pm

Let's hope going broke is not one of them!

Well, actually, the United Stated government is just as broke, but it has the Fed in its pockets, printing money and inflating our dollar. California has no such legal authority to do this (which is why it'd be great if the Fed were audited and then abolished).

But I don't know who else would be able to have the reach to be able to regulate it.
Just because government is "bigger" does not mean it is the only capable entity. Look up UL (United Laboratories), which works with electronics companies to ensure their safety. Wal-Mart won't even sell a product without a UL endorsement. As for food, there are many agencies who could do a better job endorsing food, just like certain agencies endorse colleges and universities, health clinics, and other arenas of commerce. The market is not perfect, but it does produce less waste, and oftentimes (if not always) provides more generously than the government does.

by: justintime

06-30-2009 @ 11:11pm

Hey Kevin!

Breaking News!

Norm Coleman finally concedes,
after the RNC spent a million dollars on this loser,
just to keep Al Franken out of the Senate.

SENATOR AL FRANKEN!

Let's have a big round of applause for the patience of Progressives!

by: justintime

06-30-2009 @ 11:11pm

Hey Kevin!

Breaking News!

Norm Coleman finally concedes,
after the RNC spent a million dollars on this loser,
just to keep Al Franken out of the Senate.

SENATOR AL FRANKEN!

Let's have a big round of applause for the patience of Progressives!

by: justintime

07-01-2009 @ 1:11am

Hey Kevin!

Breaking News!

Norm Coleman finally concedes,
after the RNC spent two million dollars on this loser,
just to keep Al Franken out of the Senate.

SENATOR AL FRANKEN!

Let's have a big round of applause for the patience of Progressives!

by: justintime

07-01-2009 @ 1:11am

Hey Kevin!

Breaking News!

Norm Coleman finally concedes,
after the RNC spent two million dollars on this loser,
just to keep Al Franken out of the Senate.

SENATOR AL FRANKEN!

Let's have a big round of applause for the patience of Progressives!