Government Regulation

My political approach has continually crept its way further and further left.  It seems as though every morning while reading Politico or Huffington Post it takes very little effort to find examples of some entity within the United States abusing the somewhat laissez-faire approach that characterizes the United States within contemporary society.  While conservatives argue that Obama's "Socialist Regime" will ultimately be the end of our the American free market--as I stated above, it does not take much to provide counterparts to their conservative drivel.  As a liberal, I am a staunch believer in the role of government and their right to regulate nearly all aspects of our economy.  These approaches to political dealings transcend into the realm of environmental matters--where I believe that regulation is a NECESSITY in order to maintain and conserve our environment.  The environment is a topic within the political field that often gets overlooked when it comes to fiscal matters, however maintaining and adopting green initiatives is a necessary in order for the United States to maintain its title as the "World Leader".  While the title has been slipping in recent years, the United States still sets the tone for movements throughout the world, making it essential that we change our approach to dealings with the environment. 

The Republican party offers a Market Based Initiative(MBI) approach to solving environmental issues such as greenhouse gases, pollution and electricity.  This approach is characterized by cap-and-trade system--a system that is designed to promote lower pollution, energy use etc. through the trading of credits, while also in typical Republican fashion, providing financial incentives to companies as a means of enticing them to move towards more efficient and green approaches.  Providing credits for companies to trade (purchase) not only favors big business (shocking), but it also allows for companies to go about their business in a manner that does not necessarily put the environment first.  Companies who find it financially smarter to continue to pollute, will continue to do so--while other companies may move towards green initiatives, the pollution levels within a cap-and-trade system are relatively similar throughout time and ultimately do not do enough to provide incentives to companies to move towards more eco-friendly business practices.  While cap-and-trade does provide a "cap" on the overall pollution, it creates a market where credits are traded and thus can place a financial burden on companies.  While the companies "pay" for the credits, this idea falls in line with the idea of companies paying for your social security.  While it appears at the surface that the companies are paying for our social security, in all actuality they are using money that otherwise would have been your salary, ultimately costing nothing but the individual money.  This same idea holds true within the cap-and-trade MBI, the cost of polluting/using fuel ultimately trickles down to the consumer, causing prices to go up for the common individual, while corporations continue to make profit. 

As I stated above, as a liberal I find myself identifying with government intervention to solve issues that arise within the political realm.  With regard to the environment I believe that the federal government needs to set into actions regulations that hold big business accountable for their pollution etc., in addition to setting state specific mandates that enable green initiatives to begin to become more mainstream throughout the United States.  Although I staunchly believe that this is the approach that is necessary, I believe that there are many issues within society that make government regulation an effective idea rather than an effective means to solving current issues within the field of environmental politics.  Ultiamtely, the polarization of political parties makes agenda setting an arduous task that encompasses much more time and effort than should be required.  In addition, Republicans are now beginning to accept the fact that global warming is not some bat shit crazy idea, but in fact an issue that will plague politics with no end in sight.  State and Federal Budgets also come into play and make an overhaul of the current system an unattainable idea--within the current state of the economy it is evident that the environment barely makes its way into the equation.  While government regulation is a necessity, there exists too many schisms within the current political realm to make government regulation an effective means of dealing with the environment.

With MBI's ineffective, and a political climate that makes government regulation difficult--voluntary action begins to seem more and more legitimate as environmental issues continue to come to the surface.  The 1960's brought about civil rights change through the implementation of grassroots movements that were not "top-down" initiatives, but rather the collective action of individuals with a common belief.  Ultiamtely, "going green" is an idea that has encompassed contemporary culture.  Contemporary society is characterized by individuals who drive fuel efficient cars, use the carpool lane, eat organic foods or use alternative energy, the catch: all these voluntary actions are characterized by high financial costs.  Ultimately, the voluntary action movement pertaining to environmental politics is evident in society, but it is my personal belief that it is not more widespread due to the financial burden that "going green" and being "eco-smart" places on the average American within a society in a deep recession and with nearly 10% unemployment. 

The realm of environmental politics offers many issues that will soon fine themselves dubbed "hot-button" issues in the future.  However, our current political climate--polarization of parties, power of corporations and a continually growing national debt have made dealing with the environment more of a fad than an actuality.  (See John McCain's Eco-Friendly Clothing).  I personally believe that the answer lies within top-to-bottom government regulation.  However, I believe that that idea coming to fruition is years away and we must continue to rely on the grassroots based initiatives through voluntary action by individuals to place pressure on local governments and regulations in order to bring salience to the countless issues that exist within this realm.  Ultimately, I feel as though the actions taken by government have not been enough and we will continue to head towards a future that require immediate action a la social security reorganization that has still not been addressed.  Ultimately, my political ideals line up with government intervention, but also account for the role of the individual and movements (which can be seen by mostly democrats partaking in outspoken political actions) and will continue to emphasize the role of the individual until the salience of this topic trumps domestic issues outside of helping corporate America.