Conservatives Usurping Progressive Heroes

There was a lot of press this week about Nelson Mandela’s death, and of course many political leaders praised his life at his passing. While I believe that honoring the life of someone whose political views are different from your own is completely acceptable, I find it repulsive when people try to usurp that person’s legacy as your own when they would in no way support your cause. Take for example Rick Santorum’s use of the Mandela legacy to equate the injustice of apartheid with that of Obamacare. Obviously he and his followers do not agree with the politics of Nelson Mandela, as proven by Ted Cruz’s ill fated attempt to claim Mandela as a “defender of liberty.” (While I do agree that Mandela was a defender of liberty, I doubt that he would have agreed with Cruz’s definition of the term). Cruz’s followers were quick to point out that the two have very little in common politically, as you can see by their fanatical tirade against Mandela in response to the senator’s praise of the man.

Obama, Hitler, and Facebook

Today my wife got in a Facebook argument with a friend who had posted this picture on her profile:

The thing that bothers me most about this is how easy it is to take at face value and accept what it says. In reality president Obama didn’t sign a single executive order regarding gun control. I know that a lot of news outlets reported that he did, but they were wrong. This article points out that there were 0 executive orders, 3 memorandums, and the rest were only letters or requests. Even if all those were executive orders, which of them do gun advocates actually disagree with? There’s a full list here, take a look and let me know which action equates president Obama with Hitler.

Scrolling past the picture the argument quickly digressed into the same extremes that the gun argument always does. My wife actually took the one extreme end saying that she was “all for revoking the ‘right to bear arms’” (I actually disagree completely on that point, but that’s what was said) which led to those on the other side of the argument to make their extreme case as well. I think that this extreme back and forth is the worst thing possible for the gun debate. I believe that there needs to be a discussion about guns, but the extremism prevents finding any common ground that everyone can get behind. The sad thing is that there is a lot of common ground; polls suggest that over 90% of Americans agree that background checks should be mandatory for gun ownership (including closing gun show loopholes). There is also widespread support for preventing felons and people with mental illnesses from obtaining guns. Over 70% believe that guns should be registered, and between 50-60% agree that semi-automatics should be banned along with high capacity clips. This article from the Washington post has more information on these polls along with some other interesting gun facts about guns, gun control, and public opinion.

One thing that comes up fairly regularly when someone is trying to shut down the debate is the argument that there are over 20,000 laws regarding guns on the books already and we should just enforce them. CNN reported on a study which counted gun laws at closer to 300. The study itself states that it is unclear where this 20,000 number came from; but it has become so widely stated and used that nobody questions it. Even if that number were true, does that somehow suggest that guns are properly regulated? I would say that this suggests an overly complicated set of laws that could use some serious reform in order to simplify them. Wouldn’t a set of laws that are less complicated mean less expertise needed to comply, and therefore reduce cost of enforcing them? The other issue with this argument is the fact that the ATF is overburdened, understaffed, and lacks authority necessary to enforce the laws that are on the books. John Stewart pointed this out on his January 16^th show (Canadian viewers can see that episode here).

Another argument that was used in this case was the old “cars kill more people than guns, should we ban all cars?” This one drives me nuts for two reasons; first because the argument implies that there’s any threat that guns will actually be banned. The death star petition was more likely to become a reality than any full on gun ban (by the way, if you haven’t read the response to the death star petition, it’s really funny). The other reason I can’t stand this argument is that it is comparing apples to oranges. A car is designed for transportation and with proper use and care a car will not hurt anybody. On the other hand a gun is designed to kill. Its proper use results in death. That is not an unfortunate side effect of using a gun; it is the primary purpose. Aside from that unfortunate fact, I think that it is interesting that so many gun advocates use that argument because many of the gun control laws that this argument is used against are essentially things that we already do to regulate cars. In order to legally operate a vehicle you are required to have a license to show that you are trained to operate it, every vehicle needs to be registered, and every car owner needs to purchase liability insurance in case they have an accident that causes damage or injury. This is just a small example of the regulations in place to protect both car owners and those that may be impacted by the actions of car owners. Does it make sense that it should take less time and training to own and operate a military style semi-automatic weapon specifically made to kill people than it does to buy a Prius? I’d say that would be common sense gun control, but very few politicians in the US are even talking about going that far.

I am not in favor of a gun ban; I believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own firearms but I think that owning a gun should require at least the same level of personal responsibility as owning a vehicle. 

Clean Energy and Experimental Lakes

A few weeks ago I posted a video that outlined a plan by the Rocky Mountain Institute to reduce carbon emissions in the United States to near zero over the next 40 years. Many people don’t think that this is an important goal because they don’t believe that human activity is warming the planet; my goal is to show you why it’s in our best interest to do this even if it turned out that human activity is having no effect on the climate.

One positive to renewable energy is the huge financial benefit! This is true on a national scale, a global scale, and most importantly for most people, on an individual scale. Getsolar.com recently posted an article that predicted 1 million solar installations in California by 2020, which will add $30 Billion to the economy and create 20,000 jobs. This will also reduce dependence on coal power plants, resulting in cleaner air (which is a huge issue in California) and lower electricity costs. The same article also mentions that Environment California (which is an environmental advocacy group) suggested some steps that California could take to ensure that the state continued to have strong solar installation numbers; one of which was the implementation of a Net Zero home building requirement that would require either solar or other on site renewable energy source for every new home by 2020 and the same for non residential buildings by 2030. This may seem like an unrealistic goal (to see all new buildings generate at least as much energy as they consume by 2030) but some builders are working towards this already. Avalon Master Builders based in Calgary, Alberta has said that they will build exclusively Net Zero homes by 2015! This is what they had to say about it on their website:

“Our mission is to build 100% of our homes as Net-Zero energy homes by 2015 for no additional cost to the consumer while creating homes people love to live in... It means meeting the needs of today without compromising the environment's ability to meet future generations’ needs.Save money now. Save the environment for your kids.”

So to recap what they’re saying; every new home that they build will generate as much electricity as it consumes with no additional costs to the consumer!!! Not only will the home cost the same to build, but it will not cost anything to heat or for electricity! These will be homes that have all the benefits of a solar installation with none of the extra upfront costs, so the savings are realized from day one. This is not some non profit organization that is subsidizing building these homes; this is a business out to make a profit. The homes are profitable for them, save money for the consumer, and reduce pollution all at once! I can’t think of a downside that would offset any of these benefits.

Sustainability

Last time I posted I mentioned that a recent poll showed that less than half of Canadians “worried a great deal” about global warming. I interpret that to mean that most don’t believe it to be real or to be caused by human activity. Because the scepticism/apathy towards climate change is so widespread, I don’t want to waste my time trying to convince people that it is real (although, if you’re interested in hearing what scientists have to say on the matter lately, read this, this, and this). Instead, I’d like to point out that it doesn’t really matter whether or not climate change is real; because reducing carbon pollution and improving the overall sustainability of our society as a whole is not only the right thing to do, but is the surest route to long-term prosperity.

Most arguments against taking action on global warming have to do with predictions of an economic Armageddon if we make the transition to renewable energy with little or no carbon emissions. At the bottom of this post I’ll show a video that outlines a 40 year energy plan for the US that not only nearly eliminates America’s carbon footprint; but also cuts costs, increases national security by eliminating the need for foreign oil, and creates a sustainable path forward. The idea that sustainable energy is not economically feasible is a myth, and it becomes more so every day as new technologies emerge. The video highlights the work of the Rocky Mountain Institute, which did an energy retrofit of the Empire State Building recently with better than predicted results in terms of energy savings. You can read about the specifics here.

The thing that frustrates me about the conversation regarding reducing pollution in general is that nobody seems to have made the argument that business as usual is sustainable. Think about that for a moment; in all the arguments for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, for reducing protections for the environment, and for increasing development in the tar sands, nobody is making the argument that we can continue on this path indefinitely (I haven’t heard anyone make that argument before anyway, sorry if I’m wrong on that). I don’t understand how it is that people are able to justify the idea that we should continue down a path that leads to a complete exhaustion of our natural resources. People argue that we have enough coal reserves or natural gas or whatever to last a century, so why should we switch now to renewable resources? The answer is that even just the methods of extraction destroy entire ecosystems, and have negative effects on water supplies. Why poison our own water just so we can continue to use the same old energy sources we’re used to? Why wouldn’t we want to ensure that we’re using the most efficient and cheapest means of generating electricity? It makes no sense to continue down the path we’re on.

The myth that renewable energy is too expensive needs to stop now; the idea that it is more economically viable to keep driving towards a cliff needs to end before it ends us. This article explains just how economically feasible renewable energy is. I’m going to post a few more videos in the coming weeks that outline different groups that show just how much better life could be using more sustainable designs and energy sources. Please spread the word.

Global Warming

Recently I have become increasingly worried about the direction that the world in general, but more specifically Canada, has been heading in terms of environmental issues.  Recently the government of Canada eliminated many government positions involved in environmental oversight. An article in the Times Colonist reported that the entire Department of Fisheries contaminants program was being axed. One of the Marine Biologists being fired said “The entire pollution file for the government of Canada, and marine environment in Canada’s three oceans, will be overseen by five junior biologists scattered across the country — one of which will be stationed in B.C.,”

This kind of radical disregard for the environment is par for the course for the conservative government’s 2012 budget. This article from CBC News outlines the changes that the government implemented with the new budget; among other things it overhauls environmental regulations and how they are overseen. It cut funding entirely to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, an advisory panel that has produced reports in recent years that were contrary to the conservative government’s policies regarding the environment and recommended more stringent environmental regulations. The group has existed for over 20 years, but due to budget cuts they will be completely phased out; which I would find hard to believe was not due to the fact that they regularly recommend actions which the conservatives don’t support and won’t follow. This article outlines a little about the roundtable getting cut, as well as another move the budget makes to quell dissent regarding the environment; by imposing stricter rules regarding political activities of charities. This is likely related to the situation which led to David Suzuki resigning from the David Suzuki Foundation. The interesting thing about the cuts to so many environmental agencies is that altogether they amount to a mere fraction of what the government spends on subsidies to the oil industry.  I found this quote from the Postmedia news article especially enlightening regarding how the Canadian government feels about protecting the oil industry at the expense of the government:

David Sawyer, an environmental economist who specializes in climate change policy, has estimated these remaining subsidies are costing taxpayers $1.3 billion per year, while encouraging more pollution and emissions that cause global warming.

This is part of a frightening trend happening lately, which I think stems from another trend which sees less and less people actually concerned about global warming. A recent poll shows that less than half of Canadians said they “worried a great deal” about global warming or about loss of the rainforest. This is the kind of apathy towards our planet that allows these environmental cuts to take place, and I worry what the long term consequences will be.

If you’re not concerned about global warming, then I hope you’re at least concerned about clean water, air quality, and contamination of land (which the poll I mentioned before suggests you’re more likely to). In that case, please watch this video regarding the tar sands in Alberta and how they affect the environment. The speaker does speak a lot on global warming, but the effects it has on the land are what bothered me the most, as they’re so blatant. This beautiful part of our country may never recover from what has happened to it.

I hope that you watch the entire video, it’s quite powerful. One of the main arguments against any action to prevent these mines in the boreal forest is that it is too costly economically to do anything about. Over the next few weeks I’m going to post some articles and videos to show that notion to be false. Action against pollution will benefit the entire world in more ways than just the prevention of climate change. Even if you don’t believe that climate change is happening, the steps to prevent it are beneficial in so many ways it’s hard to believe that anyone would want to keep going with business as usual.

Socialism

In the book 1984, George Orwell claimed that one of the ways that the totalitarian regime that controlled the nation used the method of controlling the language in order to control people. The crime that enveloped all crime in Orwell’s dystopia was thoughtcrime, the crime of thinking things that were unorthodox, or that didn’t follow the party line. Newspeak was the solution to this problem, a language that stifled the ability of the people to think thoughts that were unorthodox, to conceive of a world that didn’t fit into Big Brother’s plan.

I will not be so dramatic as to pretend that I think this is happening today, I don’t believe that there is anything approaching this level of organization at work. What I will say is that much of the political conversation is being manipulated by trying to get people boxed in to a belief system by manipulating the language that you associate with certain ideas. I won’t pretend that this is one sided, both parties want you to use the buzzwords that they use, and just by associating things or ideas with a certain word can dramatically change the way you see that thing. One example where both parties have tried to get you to use their vocabulary is regarding tax increases, specifically on the wealthy. The democrats would love for you to refer to the wealthy as “Millionaires and Billionaires,” which is accurate, but has a connotation that associates them with excess and overabundance, making you more likely to be in favor of increasing their taxes. On the other side you have the Republicans wanting you to call the same people “Job Creators,” which is intended to make you feel like you can’t tax those people, or they’ll stop creating jobs. Some other examples of this would be how the Republicans use the term “job killing” to describe several things that they disagree with, including taxes, government regulation, and various bills they don’t want to become law. Democrats speak often about how tax loopholes coddle the rich. These terms all have in common that they elicit emotional responses, galvanizing beliefs people already hold and encouraging changes to existing contradictory views.

Better government by becoming better citizens

I'm not going to write much about this video because I hope anyone reading this will watch the whole thing (it's only about 12 minutes). This is from ted.com and it's about a group called Code for America. I think it outlines an essential ingredient that we in North America (and I'd wager most modern democracy's, but I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of other cultures enough to comment) tend to miss out on. I think that the essence of what the speaker is trying to convey in this talk is that we should "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." If we all have that attitude, then imagine what we as a people can accomplish!