The "Citizens United" decision rendered by the Supreme Court has already created havoc. The idea that a corporation is an individual and can behave as an individual is, of course, based upon a truly partisan reading of the Constitution. The origin of the idea of incorporation was, in fact, an acknowledgment that a firm is made up of many individuals, and that not all of these individuals should be held liable for the bad acts of some. All incorporation does is to limit the liability of a firm for damages to the coffers of the firm itself. The individuals who run, or work for the firm are not personally liable for damages caused by the firm unless it can be shown that their bad acts alone caused the damages.
Throughout the history of nations, entities of commerce and trade have sought political advantage. Companies have competed to be the sole purveyors to the Crown in monarchies. They have fought to be sole purveyors to the governments of the countries in which they existed. They have sought lower taxes and fees for themselves, and lower interest rates from the central banks and from local governments. They have sought to avoid regulation and inspection by government agencies and they have argued against all manner of environmental protection.
The desire of large firms to have more political power is nothing new, but this decision has handed them greater power than they have ever had. This decision is also embedded in the new tradition, started in the Reagan White House, of elevation financiers to true insider status. While it is true that the "Robber Barons" of the late nineteenth century had nearly this kind of power, they had it without the complete impramatur of the government. In fact, their outrageous behavior engendered anti-trust legislation. Today, the financial services firms' bad behavior has been rewarded with bailouts and new legal power. This is wrong, we know, but what can be done??
Remedies Anyone?
The first remedy is obvious. There must be enough push-back from the voting public to scare members of Congress into passing legislation which will reverse the decision, or render it null and void. The Occupy Movement must regain its steam, with a focus on this action, to get the attention of Congress. This decision has been such a boon to many of them that little, short of the real threat being voted out, would cause them to want to undo it. The sad thing seems to be that the Occupy Movement seems to have ebbed, and that is a difficult problem for such an unfocused and leaderless movement. If Congress could be scared enough, this would be the quickest and easiest solution. There may be some other ways to approach the undoing of "Citizens United," however.
Campaign Reform - Yes
One of the reasons why the unlimited spending power of corporations is so important to candidates is that campaigns now cost far too much. Political campaigning has created a whole new industry. Political advertising is a special new branch of marketing. The use of media is becoming more sophisticated and more expensive with every passing political season. Social media, while less expensive, has given rise to a new breed of "experts," who charge large sums for doing what teen agers do all the time for free.
I would suggest that we create a comprehensive campaign reform bill which sets definite (and short) time limits on political campaigns, which limits the amount of money that can be spent by any candidate in any race, which, perhaps, makes the funding for campaigns public, and which limits the negative nature of so much of today's campaigning. I know that this would be controversial and time-consuming, but it might remove the reasons for the power of unlimited spending. I believe that all candidates in any race should have equal funds and that all should have equal opportunity to address the voting public.
Such a bill would, again, need massive public support. I think we should "occupy" this.
What about the courts???
If Joe decides to rob a bank and his stomach becomes upset as he plans the heist, could we say that his stomach didn't want to do the robbery? It seems to me that we could, but we can't consider Joe's stomach to be not a part of him because, as an individual, all of Joe's organs are part of Joe. So, if Joe pulls off his robbery and gets caught and convicted, his tummy is going to the slammer with him.
Now, if a corporation is an individual, would not all the people who work for it, from the CEO to the gardener, be organs of that individual? Would there be a District Attorney courageous enough to make that argument when a corporation has clearly broken the law? Shouldn't ALL of the organs of the corporation go to jail along with it? If the courts say, "no," then how can the "Citizens United" decision stand? Clearly, not all of the people who work for the firm want their money spent on the candidates to whom the officers of the firm give money. Clearly, the political connections of the managers may give some of the employees an upset stomach. How can we say that a corporation is an individual if its organs aren't all part of it before the law.
SO, the next time we see a clear case of corporate wrong-doing, I believe prosecutors should raise the issue. Whatever penalty is meted out to the firm ought to be suffered by even the lowliest member. Remember Joe. His toenail on his little toe is doing time with him because he's an individual.
Perhaps one, or all of these remedies will untie us from the bonds of this terrible decision and the conditions which have already arisen from it.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Global Warming and Energy, the forgotten issues
The two most pressing issues that all political candidates ignore are inextricably linked. They are also linked to the issues discussed in my previous post. In fact, in spite of their invisibility, they are linked to every issue that is discussed as if they weren't there.
The United States faces a series of energy problems that threaten its structural foundations. First is the fact that the vast majority of our energy production is based upon non-renewable resources. These resources are no longer truly plentiful. Even coal, which is hailed as a nearly inexhaustible resource, is finite. It is also dirty, and the claims of the coal industry that practical sequestration is near are not supported by recent research. Oil, which still undergirds most of our energy use, is a dwindling resource. The peak of oil production in the world has probably been reached, or shortly will be. What sources of oil remain are problematic, expensive, and potentially environmentally disastrous. All we need to do is recall the riveting pictures of the Gulf Oil Spill caused by the blowout of BP's deep ocean drilling rig. We are now looking at Tar Sands, Arctic drilling, and more deep sea exploration and drilling. All of these are risky and expensive, and none of them is a very long term solution.
The U.S. uses twenty-two million barrels of oil per day. This means that we consume a billion barrels of oil every fifty days! When advocates of drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge argue that there are three billion barrels of oil there, they are talking about a five month supply, and it will take several years for any of that oil to reach a refinery.
An even more ominous note was sounded last week, when China outbid The U.S. and other developed countries for the rights to explore and capture oil in Afghanistan's northern provinces. As China's demand for energy grows, it puts the U.S. and China into a race to secure the world's sources of oil for their respective energy systems. This will, inevitably, reduce the amount of oil that the U.S. will be able to secure, while it will greatly increase the price of that oil. The most fearsome part of this race is that it could lead to tensions which explode into armed conflict. This is something that neither nation wants or needs.
To top off all of the energy problems, our current hydrocarbon energy system is the greatest cause of Global Climate Change. The burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, to produce energy has caused the amount Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere to rise to levels beyond that at which it can be absorbed by the world's plant life. This has caused the "Greenhouse Effect" to become a real and present threat. Already, we see the reduction in the polar ice fields and sea ice. The Arctic Ice Pack is smaller and thinner than it has ever been. While the melting of sea ice does not cause the level of the oceans to rise, the melting of land ice, in places like Greenland does. We now see several island nations which might become submerged in the near future. Where will their people go?
Plant species are beginning to migrate. Those which need cooler temperatures to propagate seek higher elevations. Those which do well in warmer, dryer areas encroach on arable land. The migration of plant species causes, in turn, the migration of the animal species which depend on them. This brings some species into conflict with other species over territory which was never contested before. This has real consequences for bio-diversity.
There are potential economic consequences. Much of America's midwestern farm belt may become too arid to support the staple crops that are grown there now. There would be significant loss of jobs and income and the U.S. would have to import foodstocks which it now exports.
Thus, the United States must begin to honor the linage between its energy policy and its policy on climate change, as soon as it develops either one in a clear and responsible way. Energy policy can no longer concentrate on securing new sources of oil. The country must invest, yes, invest in the development of alternative energy sources. We are already building new wind farms and supporting research into more efficient photovoltaic solar cells, but this is not enough.
There are three promising fields of energy research. The first is the solar cell. The main problem with solar cells is that each cell is less efficient in converting sunlight into energy than we would hope. Researchers are working on ways to make single cells more productive so that solar arrays might become less cumbersom and take up less space. The second area is the least understood. It is the creation of electrical energy through thermo-nuclear fusion. The theory is amazing. Once a fusion reaction which produces more energy than it takes to create it, the production of energy would be endless and environmentally benign. It takes, however, so much energy to start a fusion reaction that experimenters have never been able to do it. A third possible solution to the energy problem could be the conversion from a hydrocarbon energy base to a carbohydrate energy base. This would be done by producing fuels from cellulose. This would use plant products such as slash from brush clearance, or sugar cane. There has been promising research in this area, but it is very under-funded. Other energy producing alternatives have environmental problems.
The key is that our new energy system must give us the energy we want and need to maintain our mobility and our ability to create and produce the things we need, without exacerbating the problem of climate change. In fact, a new energy policy should have as a central goal, the reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
We also need to spend. The Government must invest heavily in energy/climate research. It would be better for the American economy if the energy system of the future was largely developed here. Today, the U.S., with five percent of the world's population, uses thirty percent of the energy produced in the world. It would be to our great advantage if we could produce an energy system which would give every nation abundant energy without causing more warming, or other environmental problems. Such a system would create jobs. It would help to offset the loss of jobs as the old ways of producing energy are phased out. It would bring new avenues of creativity for the nation that has done so much to create and promote modern communication technology and modern automotive technology.
We must remember that two-thirds of the energy we consume is used in transportation. Our research should concentrate there, and we have made some strides. There are now cars on the road which can run on electricity alone. More efficient Hybrids have been developed. The U.S. Government has mandated higher mileage standards. All this is to the good, but it threatens the profits of big oil. In my previous post, I wrote about the evils of profit maximization. As the world's oil is depleted, the remaining stock becomes more expensive. The Oil Companies are in no hurry to help the world develop an energy system which would make the remaining stock of oil less profitable. They are making huge profits from the increase in oil prices as the supply of oil diminishes in relation to the demand for it.
It is also the case that this issue is crucial to all developed and developing nations. These nations must work together to find and develop these new energy systems and to mitigate the dire effects of global warming. This is not a time for conflict. The "winners" in such a conflict would win nothing. They can't stop the diminishing of the supply of fossil fuels. These problems should be an integral part of the political discourse, yet they are not. That is not the most urgent aspect of these issues, it is just the saddest, - - - and most destructive.
The United States faces a series of energy problems that threaten its structural foundations. First is the fact that the vast majority of our energy production is based upon non-renewable resources. These resources are no longer truly plentiful. Even coal, which is hailed as a nearly inexhaustible resource, is finite. It is also dirty, and the claims of the coal industry that practical sequestration is near are not supported by recent research. Oil, which still undergirds most of our energy use, is a dwindling resource. The peak of oil production in the world has probably been reached, or shortly will be. What sources of oil remain are problematic, expensive, and potentially environmentally disastrous. All we need to do is recall the riveting pictures of the Gulf Oil Spill caused by the blowout of BP's deep ocean drilling rig. We are now looking at Tar Sands, Arctic drilling, and more deep sea exploration and drilling. All of these are risky and expensive, and none of them is a very long term solution.
The U.S. uses twenty-two million barrels of oil per day. This means that we consume a billion barrels of oil every fifty days! When advocates of drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge argue that there are three billion barrels of oil there, they are talking about a five month supply, and it will take several years for any of that oil to reach a refinery.
An even more ominous note was sounded last week, when China outbid The U.S. and other developed countries for the rights to explore and capture oil in Afghanistan's northern provinces. As China's demand for energy grows, it puts the U.S. and China into a race to secure the world's sources of oil for their respective energy systems. This will, inevitably, reduce the amount of oil that the U.S. will be able to secure, while it will greatly increase the price of that oil. The most fearsome part of this race is that it could lead to tensions which explode into armed conflict. This is something that neither nation wants or needs.
To top off all of the energy problems, our current hydrocarbon energy system is the greatest cause of Global Climate Change. The burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, to produce energy has caused the amount Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere to rise to levels beyond that at which it can be absorbed by the world's plant life. This has caused the "Greenhouse Effect" to become a real and present threat. Already, we see the reduction in the polar ice fields and sea ice. The Arctic Ice Pack is smaller and thinner than it has ever been. While the melting of sea ice does not cause the level of the oceans to rise, the melting of land ice, in places like Greenland does. We now see several island nations which might become submerged in the near future. Where will their people go?
Plant species are beginning to migrate. Those which need cooler temperatures to propagate seek higher elevations. Those which do well in warmer, dryer areas encroach on arable land. The migration of plant species causes, in turn, the migration of the animal species which depend on them. This brings some species into conflict with other species over territory which was never contested before. This has real consequences for bio-diversity.
There are potential economic consequences. Much of America's midwestern farm belt may become too arid to support the staple crops that are grown there now. There would be significant loss of jobs and income and the U.S. would have to import foodstocks which it now exports.
Thus, the United States must begin to honor the linage between its energy policy and its policy on climate change, as soon as it develops either one in a clear and responsible way. Energy policy can no longer concentrate on securing new sources of oil. The country must invest, yes, invest in the development of alternative energy sources. We are already building new wind farms and supporting research into more efficient photovoltaic solar cells, but this is not enough.
There are three promising fields of energy research. The first is the solar cell. The main problem with solar cells is that each cell is less efficient in converting sunlight into energy than we would hope. Researchers are working on ways to make single cells more productive so that solar arrays might become less cumbersom and take up less space. The second area is the least understood. It is the creation of electrical energy through thermo-nuclear fusion. The theory is amazing. Once a fusion reaction which produces more energy than it takes to create it, the production of energy would be endless and environmentally benign. It takes, however, so much energy to start a fusion reaction that experimenters have never been able to do it. A third possible solution to the energy problem could be the conversion from a hydrocarbon energy base to a carbohydrate energy base. This would be done by producing fuels from cellulose. This would use plant products such as slash from brush clearance, or sugar cane. There has been promising research in this area, but it is very under-funded. Other energy producing alternatives have environmental problems.
The key is that our new energy system must give us the energy we want and need to maintain our mobility and our ability to create and produce the things we need, without exacerbating the problem of climate change. In fact, a new energy policy should have as a central goal, the reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
We also need to spend. The Government must invest heavily in energy/climate research. It would be better for the American economy if the energy system of the future was largely developed here. Today, the U.S., with five percent of the world's population, uses thirty percent of the energy produced in the world. It would be to our great advantage if we could produce an energy system which would give every nation abundant energy without causing more warming, or other environmental problems. Such a system would create jobs. It would help to offset the loss of jobs as the old ways of producing energy are phased out. It would bring new avenues of creativity for the nation that has done so much to create and promote modern communication technology and modern automotive technology.
We must remember that two-thirds of the energy we consume is used in transportation. Our research should concentrate there, and we have made some strides. There are now cars on the road which can run on electricity alone. More efficient Hybrids have been developed. The U.S. Government has mandated higher mileage standards. All this is to the good, but it threatens the profits of big oil. In my previous post, I wrote about the evils of profit maximization. As the world's oil is depleted, the remaining stock becomes more expensive. The Oil Companies are in no hurry to help the world develop an energy system which would make the remaining stock of oil less profitable. They are making huge profits from the increase in oil prices as the supply of oil diminishes in relation to the demand for it.
It is also the case that this issue is crucial to all developed and developing nations. These nations must work together to find and develop these new energy systems and to mitigate the dire effects of global warming. This is not a time for conflict. The "winners" in such a conflict would win nothing. They can't stop the diminishing of the supply of fossil fuels. These problems should be an integral part of the political discourse, yet they are not. That is not the most urgent aspect of these issues, it is just the saddest, - - - and most destructive.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)