On January 1, 2014, the Seattle suburb of SeaTac, Washington became the first town in the nation to raise its minimum wage to $15/hour. They did it in one step with barely any lead time, albeit with some exemptions such as businesses with fewer than 30 employees (and the courts soon ruled that airport employees are outside its jurisdiction and are therefore exempt as well). And the Koch-roaches and their disgusting ilk (along with some local business owners as well) were playing Chicken Little and predictably claiming that it would "destroy jobs" and all that jazz.
But guess what? The sky didn't fall after all. In fact, raising the minimum wage to $15 turned out to be a major shot in the arm for the town's economy, who saw a major revitalization in the past year. Local businesses were expanding, not laying off employees en masse like the naysayers predicted. And the reason is simple economics: when workers have more money, they have more to spend in the local economy, which creates more jobs and so on in a virtuous cycle. A win-win-win situation for everyone but the plutocrats and their sycophantic lackeys. So we can consider the naysayers to be debunked.
The TSAP supports raising the federal minimum wage to at least $10/hour if not higher, and many state and local minimum wages to at least $12 if not $15. Now that SeaTac was the guinea pig, soon followed by Seattle, we can now say that $15/hour is no longer terra incognita. So even a federal minimum wage of $15 should still be considered as an option, which we would support as well. Specifically, we want a general minimum wage of $15 for workers over 18 years of age. Workers under 18 should be paid at least 80% of that amount, or $12/hour. Ditto for workers of any age in the first 30 days on the job, as a "training wage". There should be no tip credits either. Small business with fewer than 10 employees would be exempt from the wage hike, and would be able to pay the same as now. Businesses with 10-30 employees would have the new minimum wage phased in gradually over two or three years, while businesses with more than 30 employees would be have to pay $15/hour within six months (i.e. two fiscal quarters) of the new law's enactment. Otherwise, there should be no exceptions, period. And for the first few years of the new law, there should be special tax credits for employers who hire workers under age 25 and over 55, and even greater tax credits for hiring employees under 20 years of age. That should alleviate any hyperbolic concerns about a higher minimum wage somehow pricing these "less valuable" workers out of the market--which has never really been conclusively proven anyway.
So what are we waiting for?
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
The Nuclear "Renaissance" That Wasn't--And Probably Never Will Be
After recently giving our annual State of the Planet Address for 2015, we at the TSAP have begun to re-evaluate our energy policy for the future. Since 2009, our party has been heavily pushing the idea of a "nuclear renaissance" as a complement to our renewable energy future. Such an idea would entail a massive building of nuclear power plants nationwide (if not worldwide) utilizing the latest, state-of-the-art technology. And doing so would theoretically allow us to phase-out fossil fuels more quickly than if we stuck only to renewable power sources in our future energy mix. And who knows, perhaps even fusion power!
All of which sounds pretty good until you consider all of the rather sobering facts about nuclear power specifically and about energy in general. The truth is, nuclear power is actually in decline, and has been for quite some time now. Perhaps that is because policymakers are beginning to see the writing on the wall: nuclear energy is simply getting more and more expensive over time, while at the same time renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient every year. And while nuclear does not emit greenhouse gases directly, it actually does lead to significant emissions during the lifecycle as a whole (mining, milling, processing, transportation, construction, and decommissioning), and is not nearly as "green" as its proponents claim, even if it is somewhat better than fossil fuels. Which is hardly a ringing endorsement for nuclear, since saying it's "not as bad as coal" is a rather pitifully low bar to clear. And then of course there is that whole Fukushima thing, which by the way is still "hot" even many years later. As for fusion, it always seems to be perpetually 25 years away, as they were saying 50 years ago.
But probably the most damning thing of all about a "nuclear renaissance" is that its huge demands would crowd out the resources (capital, labor, infrastructure, and yes, energy in the form of fossil fuels) that would otherwise be devoted to the making the renewable energy transition possible. The time to build the huge number of nuke plants required was about 20-30 years ago, and that ship has clearly sailed. Renewables are the way to go if we are to heed the warnings of climate scientists that say that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in the next 15 years--there is simply not enough time to build nukes. Additionally, it should be clear that decentralized energy is the way of the future, as well as flexibility, and nuclear power is basically an energy dinosaur that inherently fails to deliver on both counts. Thus, as of 2015 we have officially dropped the idea of a massive nuclear power expansion from our party platform. That said, however, we at the TSAP still believe that nuclear power should not be phased out until after fossil fuels are, ideally by 2030 at the latest, and we are not against building a small number of new nuke plants between now and 2030. Like the Union of Concerned Scientists, we are now neither pro-nuclear nor anti-nuclear, but we are pro-renewables and anti-fossil fuels overall. (But we still think ground meat should be irradiated.)
All of which sounds pretty good until you consider all of the rather sobering facts about nuclear power specifically and about energy in general. The truth is, nuclear power is actually in decline, and has been for quite some time now. Perhaps that is because policymakers are beginning to see the writing on the wall: nuclear energy is simply getting more and more expensive over time, while at the same time renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient every year. And while nuclear does not emit greenhouse gases directly, it actually does lead to significant emissions during the lifecycle as a whole (mining, milling, processing, transportation, construction, and decommissioning), and is not nearly as "green" as its proponents claim, even if it is somewhat better than fossil fuels. Which is hardly a ringing endorsement for nuclear, since saying it's "not as bad as coal" is a rather pitifully low bar to clear. And then of course there is that whole Fukushima thing, which by the way is still "hot" even many years later. As for fusion, it always seems to be perpetually 25 years away, as they were saying 50 years ago.
But probably the most damning thing of all about a "nuclear renaissance" is that its huge demands would crowd out the resources (capital, labor, infrastructure, and yes, energy in the form of fossil fuels) that would otherwise be devoted to the making the renewable energy transition possible. The time to build the huge number of nuke plants required was about 20-30 years ago, and that ship has clearly sailed. Renewables are the way to go if we are to heed the warnings of climate scientists that say that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in the next 15 years--there is simply not enough time to build nukes. Additionally, it should be clear that decentralized energy is the way of the future, as well as flexibility, and nuclear power is basically an energy dinosaur that inherently fails to deliver on both counts. Thus, as of 2015 we have officially dropped the idea of a massive nuclear power expansion from our party platform. That said, however, we at the TSAP still believe that nuclear power should not be phased out until after fossil fuels are, ideally by 2030 at the latest, and we are not against building a small number of new nuke plants between now and 2030. Like the Union of Concerned Scientists, we are now neither pro-nuclear nor anti-nuclear, but we are pro-renewables and anti-fossil fuels overall. (But we still think ground meat should be irradiated.)
Friday, January 16, 2015
State of the Planet Address 2015
On January 20, 2015, the President gave his annual State of the Union
Address. And every year since 2011, the TSAP has been giving our
annual State of the Planet Address around January 20. Yes, we know it is a bit of a
downer to say the least. So sit down, take off your rose-colored
glasses, and read on:
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience (*cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*) as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Our nation's irrational fear of all things "nuclear" needs to die NOW. (And speaking of which, let's irradiate all ground meat as well--if only to scare people into eating less meat, lol)
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, though it remains to be seen if that is a secular trend or just a temporary blip due to the "recession" (i.e. depression). But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of degrowth as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest it not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda trumps it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience (*cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*) as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Our nation's irrational fear of all things "nuclear" needs to die NOW. (And speaking of which, let's irradiate all ground meat as well--if only to scare people into eating less meat, lol)
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, though it remains to be seen if that is a secular trend or just a temporary blip due to the "recession" (i.e. depression). But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of degrowth as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest it not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda trumps it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
