Most credible people agree that climate change is undeniable. Average global air and ocean temperatures have risen since the middle of the twentieth century and are predicted to continue increasing. While some disagreement exists between different scientific fields as to how much humans have contributed to this change, 97 percent of climatologists agree that climate change is happening and that humans have played a role in this trend.

This consensus among scientists who actually study the earth’s climate makes the Republican denial of it exceptionally questionable. Republicans are supposed to be levelheaded, pragmatic thinkers who say it like it is.

…except when it comes to scientific data that suggests changing the status quo is not only sensible but essential.

In light of this, I would urge Democrats who support addressing climate change to change the rhetoric around the issue- talking to Republicans about the potential adverse effects of climate change hasn’t swayed them yet

Traditionally, Democrats have championed issues like education, health care, and poverty while Republicans advocate for free markets, personal responsibility and security. The irony of climate change, though, is that the issue is really most compatible with Republican ideals.

Climate Change and Capitalism

Addressing climate change by supporting green industries, alternative energy sources, and innovation would support and even bolster free markets. Green industries would diversify the packaging, marketing, and transportation industries, among others. Diversification is considered to be a vital component of healthy, thriving economies. Supporting these green industries in the US could potentially create jobs, services, and income for the country.

According Robert Pollin, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, nearly 400,000 construction workers could be reemployed immediately on energy efficiency projects, like retrofitting existing buildings. According to Pollin’s analysis, every $1 million invested in the green sector would create 16.7 domestic jobs. This is in contrast to the 14.0 jobs created by every $1million in tax cuts, 11.0 jobs created by military programs, and 4.40 jobs created by oil and natural gas developments. Pollin believes the reason for the greater impact of green jobs is that they tend to be more labor intensive than other industries and profits tend to stay within the country, as opposed to transferring abroad for outsourced services and imported goods.

Former President Clinton has also called for green housing projects to take place. Among his ideas is one that would whitewash the roofs of lower income communities, saving them millions in heating and cooling costs and employing teens to do the painting. Daniel C. Esty, an environmental economist from Yale Law School agrees, “There’s an economic logic in improving energy efficiency in almost every building in America.” Window upgrades, insulations, water heaters, and other technologies among others are all great opportunities for profit and energy use reduction. Advertising, marketing, and selling these products would also add job prospects in related industries.

Germany, which has been struggling through its worst post-war recession, has seen strong growth in its renewable energy sector, adding 250,000 new jobs in the sector and around 1.8 million in investment to the sector. Germany’s deputy environment minister Astrid Klug told a new conference that, “investments in climate protection will help us get out of this crisis faster…. The renewable energies sector is in the midst of a highly dynamic development. We want to maintain our world leadership in technology. Climate protection is a real job motor for Germany.”

China has also decided to jump on the green wagon and is, “offering substantial support in terms of credit guarantees, loan guarantees, low cost financing to directly grow their solar manufacturing industry. The Chinese government is engaged in the productive policy of support for this industry in the way the US is not or has never been,” says Devon Swezey of The Breakthrough Institute.

The US stands to lose financially and competitively to other countries if it does not invest in green industries or support new technologies created in the market.

Climate Change and Accountability

Second to the glory of free markets on the political pyramid for Republicans is the idea of personal responsibility. Republicans have argued for years that personal responsibility is what makes America great. However, they don’t seem to think that coal and oil companies should be personally responsible for their practices. Specifically, the coal an oil industries should be asked to contend with the pollution they produce. Virtually every other industry, including farming, construction, mining, and medicine are expected to meet environmental standards, and coal and oil should be no different. They should also be expected to meet environmental standards that go beyond bureaucratic paperwork and loose measures.

One report, written by the Environmental Integrity Project and focusing on coal plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania, argues that tough regulations must be implemented because, “contamination of the environment and water supplies with toxic levels of arsenic, selenium, lead, cadmium, boron, molybdenum, and other pollutants is pervasive at America’s coal combustion waste disposal sites because states are not preventing it.” States should hold coal companies accountable for their pollution and should be held accountable themselves for not protecting its citizens.

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is another example of not holding the dirty energy industries accountable as still no provisions have been passed in either house to raise the legal liability of damages from the BP oil spill disaster and other offshore drilling mishaps from a low $75 million to a more appropriate figure. A bill previously discussed in the Senate, the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Spill Accountability Act, S. 3663, would have raised the damages liability, require new oil spill response plans to have greater specificity, reform the Interior Department’s management and oversight of ocean energy production, and increase the per incident spending limit for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund from $1billion per oil spill for clean-up costs to $5billion.

This bill was killed by Republicans for numerous reasons- none of which addressed personal responsibility. Senator Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, opposed the bill because it would have required shale gas production companies to disclose how toxic chemicals are used in hydrofracking. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Arkansas, the ranking Energy Committee member, is advocating for a limited liability scheme for future disasters that she developed with the American Petroleum Institute and would leave the liability at $75 million, even though the cost of the spill could exceed $20 billion.

Climate Change and Security

The United States government should also be more personally responsible for its security. One of the most effective ways of doing so would be to provide more substantially for its energy needs. Reliance on foreign oil is like spending money on credit- it gets you by for now, but is not a responsible way to manage one’s affairs and puts you in debt to the companies giving you juice. “The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and U.S. national security,” claims a report by a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The report attributes much of the insecurity related to energy dependence on foreign oil to the bargaining power oil producing countries have over the US. Oil producing countries are free to ignore U.S. policies and to pursue goals that are in contradiction to our national security. The task force chair, James R. Schlesinger, who is also a former secretary of defense and secretary of energy, warns “The longer the delay, the greater will be the subsequent trauma.”

Oil producing countries’ disregard for US foreign policy is evident by Venezuela’s multiple economic and social agreements with Iran, and its major arms purchases- policies that the US and other countries do not support and by Iran’s nuclear policy. This problem of negotiation is complicated by the competition between the US and other oil importing countries like China and India, who are also searching for oil. China alone has acquired interests in Kazakhstan, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Canada in order to expand its oil sources. Additionally, China has attempted to gain more influence in the Middle East, where it currently gets about 58% of its oil, by selling arms to the region, supporting states that sponsor terrorism, and its proliferation of

dual use technology. The U.S.-China Security Review Commission warns, “A key driver in China’s relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its economic development. This dependency is expected to increase over the coming decade.” Without a doubt, US-China relations will be affected by oil access in the coming years if alternative energy sources cannot be developed.

Climate Change and Democratic Leadership

Democrats would be wise to reframe the arguments about climate change. Policy analysts should not be discussing whether or not temperatures are actually rising or whether or not humans and fossil fuel consumption are contributing to the rise. They should be discussing economic stability, accountability, and security. Combining work on economic recovery with the climate crisis would create jobs quickly, increase energy independence, and create a lever against future economic crises. Holding energy companies accountable for their practices isn’t just about money, it’s also about fairness and equality. National security should be handled strategically, and that includes bargaining power and independence. The climate crisis won’t go away so ignoring it is not an option. What needs to be understood is that a green future is not mutually exclusive with economic growth, American values of equality and accountability, or with national security. A green future provides for these ideals.

Join the conversation: @roxypismo, @socialscapegoat

However, to my dismay, the country really doesn’t seem to care at all about the fact that we are at war, that we are still at war, and still asking our armed forces to “serve and protect.”

It seems there is a rift bigger than the Grand Canyon separating the concerns and life realities between soldiers and civilians.

United States Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates recently gave a speech at Duke University in which he explored the effects of operating armed forces on a purely volunteer basis.

This speech, also to my dismay, has received very little attention.  In his address, he applauds the dedication and chosen desire of American servicemen while he also questions the appropriateness of such a system as it can alienate those serving from civilians and deepen the abstraction of war for noncombatants.

While the armed forces still accurately represent the United States in terms of demography and socio-economic background, they are slanted geographically and relationally.

Soldiers come disproportionately from the South and Mountain West and rarely come from either the West or East coasts or major metropolitan areas.

What’s more, military personnel usually know someone within their family or social circles that is or has served.  The tendency for young people to enlist if they personally know a member of the armed forces, or, conversely, the tendency of young people to avoid the military if they do not know a member of the armed forces works to reinforce the sense of abstraction between military and civilian workers.

According to Gates, “This trend also affects the recruiting and educating of new officers.

The state of Alabama, with a population of less than 5 million, has 10 Army ROTC) (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps) host programs.

The Los Angeles metro area, population over 12 million, has 4 host ROTC programs.  And the Chicago metro area, population 9 million, has 3.”

Thus, metropolitan and coastal areas do not possess active military membership rates relative to their populations.

Map taken from National Priorities Project

These trends, put together, act to create a collection of soldiers who have more in common with each other than with the greater population that they protect.

It also has the corresponding effect of removing the greater civilian population from participation in the War, in combat and otherwise.  “For most Americans,” according to Gates “the wars remain an abstraction”.

A distant and unpleasant series of news items that does not affect them personally.

Even after 9/11, in the absence of a draft, for a growing number of Americans, service in the military, no matter how laudable, has become something for other people to do.”

The idea that service in the military is “something for other people to do” brings us back to the reality that U.S. armed forces work on a voluntary basis.

Without a doubt, the volunteer nature of the American armed forces represents a key factor in how the War on Terror has functioned, been sustained, and is presented.

The efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan represent the only long-term, large-scale wars fought voluntarily by the United States since our founding war with the British- the Revolutionary War.

In all previous wars, American troops consisted of volunteers and drafted soldiers, raising national awareness and participation.  The Vietnam War protests and the Peace Movement of the 1960s would not have been so volatile without the issue of The Draft.

Gates asserts, “Indeed, no major war in our history has been fought with a smaller percentage of this country’s citizens in uniform full-time – roughly 2.4 million active and reserve service members out of a country of over 300 million, less than one percent.”

Yes, that’s correct- less than one percent of the American population has served in the War on Terror.

Less than one percent of Americans truly understand what the policies of the War on Terror have actually meant for our country defensively or for the countries in which we have operated in economically, environmentally and otherwise.

The United States has now been waging “The War on Terror” for 9 years and walking down practically any street in the country it would be hard to tell.

One does not see flags waving or hoisted at half-staff, one does not see war or peace banners, and one certainly does not see a refrain from merrymaking in this time of war.

Even as the November elections approach most Americans are focused on jobs, health care, and education and will vote for candidates, by and large, based on their positions on these three issues.

Candidates do not discuss bringing the troops home, bolstering their supplies or shifting campaigns.

Young people do not stage anti-war protests or peace rallies.

No one is angry.

And really, why be angry when you don’t have to fight if you don’t want to?

Why should civilians care if soldiers have been at war for over 9 years?

They signed up for it, didn’t they?

It’s easy to disregard the state of war our country is in when one doesn’t know anyone serving or when one doesn’t feel the emotional effects of war.

It’s my opinion that we should think a bit more about the voluntary nature of military service in our country.

Civilians should be more cautious about sending their peers off to war and keeping them there for 9 years.

I, myself, am not prepared to immediately join the army and ship off to Afghanistan.

But I’m also not prepared to turn the other cheek and vote for just any candidate or ignore the peace protest going on at the local council member’s office.

I refuse to disregard the service of my fellow Americans.

I refuse to think of the War on Terror as an abstraction.

Firstly, Calderon has a right to express his feelings on the morality of the law and his opinion should be respected.  He stated that, while he respects any nation’s ability to implement laws an to enforce immigration policy, “It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”  He did not question the US’s ability to pass such a law, but only the moral implications of such a law.

Countries do this all the time.

The US government and Americans are quite active in denouncing and supporting laws passed in other countries.  Obama recently condemned Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law, Tawain has rejected China’s Anti-Secession laws, and the US and Pakistan disagree on the use of drones in the fight on terrorism. Discussion within democracies as well as BETWEEN democracies is one of the most remarkable aspects of that system of government and allows for progress, coordination, and transparency.

Besides, Calderon has a point, the law in Arizona does little to change the reality of illegal immigration into the US and the causes of the movement.  There are real reasons for immigrating from Mexico, and other Central and South American countries to the US.  Employment is easier to find, housing is better, and it is safer to live in the US.

Calderon recognized this, and says his country is doing what it can to promote jobs and other opportunities in Mexico to reduce the stream of immigrants to the US.

While it is debatable if any of the steps his government has taken is effective, his recognition of the economic state of affairs is commendable.  Without recognizing and implementing programs to assist the Mexican economy and those of other struggling Central and South American countries, illegal immigration will continue.  This may require some benevolence on the part of the US government to encourage better trade agreements, but the US can’t have it’s cake and eat it too.

In regards to border security and the safety of American and Mexican citizens, I think Calderon was right to advocate the renewal of an American law banning assault weapons that has expired.

Calderon stated that, “We cannot ignore the fact that the challenge to our security has roots on both sides of the border,” which referenced the relatively open market for firearms in the US.  Many of the firearms purchased for third parties in the US are for Mexican drug gangs. Previously, a Federal law banned the sale of certain assault weapons to civilians, but this law has expired in September 2004. Since its expiration, an estimated 23,000 gun-violence deaths over three years has occurred in Mexico. Calderon urged a renewal of the ban to help fight the drug violence within his country.

In response to all this, Senator John Cornyn of Texas asserted that he respects President Calderon and his commitment to fight the cartels, but he doesn’t, “think Americans ought to give up any of their freedoms in order to address another country’s problems.”

Cornyn should have thought before he spoke.  I agree that Americans should be weary of limiting their freedoms, but assault weapons can hardly be considered a basic necessity.  Considering that the previous ban on assault weapons and the fact that other firearms are still allowed, renewing a sanction on assault weapons should be considered an act of security, not an impingement on freedom.

Additionally, the war on drug cartels, the violence created by the drug trade, and subsequent illegal immigration to the US is not just Mexico’s problem- it’s the US’s problem too.  People die on both sides of the border due to the drug trade, income generated from the trade is of consequence to both countries, and as addressed earlier, immigration to the US is a major US concern.

I support Calderon’s speech and the fuel he added to the fire.  He should not be criticized for expressing his concerns, and Americans should listen to what he has to say. Illegal immigration is, as he stresses, of concern to both countries, with roots in both countries.

A little solidarity and teamwork goes a long way.

No matter where you stand in regards to illegal immigration in the US, it should be clear that both countries can accomplish more together than by standing alone.

Side-by-side, border-by-border, we must work together.

Follow us on twitter:

www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
www.twitter.com/RoxyPismo

The recent Immigration Law SB1070 enacted by the state of Arizona allows law enforcement agencies to question “suspected” illegal immigrants and demands that upon finding individuals of illegal status, law enforcement must take action or face allegations of failing to enforce immigration law.  This is a prickly situation for all involved, and leads us to fundamental questions on how immigration should be handled.  The law states:

“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”

Proponents of the bill have a point.  Illegal entrance into any county can be viewed as a violation of that country’s sovereignty and demonstrates a complete lack of respect for its laws.  Arizona is right to be upset as many people are living and working in the state without adhering to its laws or those of the United States.   And as the US economy continues to struggle and local and national agencies are forced to cut back on the services they provide, illegal immigrants’ subscription to these services is damaging financially.

However, SB 1070 does not address the situation of illegal migration adequately or judiciously. In fact, the law is highly offensive and legally weak.  It does not provide sufficient guidance to law enforcement officers on how to determine what reasonable suspicion includes, and encourages racial profiling, both huge setbacks to the legal integrity of the nation.

The fourth amendment to the Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure, stating that warrants for search and seizure must be supported by probable cause and limited in scope to the issue at hand.  However, the Supreme Court has also approved routine warrantless seizures for situations where there is probable cause.

And so, the main problem with the law passed by Arizona is of establishing probable cause.   In the majority of situations, this will rely too heavily on race and the physical appearance of the person in question.  Identifying individuals who might be present in the United States unlawfully would be dependent on skin color or cultural representation.  The law may actually encourage racism because it supposes that race may be a reasonable criterion of suspicion, which is a direct attack on human rights and violates American citizens’ right to fair treatment.  Nearly a third of legal residents in Arizona are Hispanic and some of these residents look and speak like undocumented immigrants so targeting those who appear to be illegal/Hispanic will no doubt lead to violations of civil rights of legal US citizens.

It is also unfair and irresponsible to pressure law enforcement to decide the legal question of reasonableness.  When the law does not provide an objective or clear and logical way of making decisions people use their own experiences and personal knowledge to make decisions.  In a landmark case, Beck v Ohio, the court affirmed that:

“good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, only in the discretion of the police.”

This case illuminates the problem created when the law does not provide sufficient guidance.  As it’s written now, the Arizona law gives broad authority to law enforcement to decide what is considered probable cause and negatively and disproportionately impacts a certain race of people- Latinos.  Good faith is inadequate because it provides law enforcement with extensive power without checks and balances, eliminating objectivity and equality before the law.

So, while I can understand those Americans who are frustrated by illegal immigration and want to protect their country and the services it provides, I can not advocate Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 because it is unconstitutional.  It’s a sloppy law that, when read objectively, fails to meet basic legal requirements to be judicial.  It does not explain sufficiently how execution of the law should proceed, and encourages racial profiling.  Let’s remember that our pledge of allegiance (all good Americans know this) states that we are, “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice FOR ALL.”

Follow us on twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
http://www.twitter.com/RoxyPismo

Having spent the last five years outside of the county, it’s been a re-indoctrination of sorts to watch the Olympics unfold in front of me on the television screen. As an event, the Olympics are presented the way Hollywood would produce a blockbuster, and all the tag lines are spectacular. Americans love a good show and honour any athlete who can bring the drama. This may be why the word redemption has been iterated and re-iterated at an obvious and ridiculous rate.

Linsdsay Jacobellis, a professional snowboarder who has competed in the World Cup and X-Games circuits, winning multiple titles, blew a significant lead in the snowboard cross final in the 2006 Torino games and took home a silver medal. In the final jump of her final run of the event in 2006, Jacobellis attempted a showboat “method grab” trick and fell, forfeiting her gold medal. Crying as she passed the finish line, she seemed not like an athlete happy to win silver, but sad that she did not win gold. Four years later, commentators have dubbed her the “Redemption-seeking Die Hard.” While this tag may not be incorrect and her drive to win may be commendable, the commentators are somewhat missing the point. Yes, it is true that snowboarding cross is a sport of creativity, spontaneity, and radical shifts – but her choice to throw down that method grab demonstrates a certain bravado; a certain American sense of audacity that has only been addressed by commentators superficially. Perhaps, it is too confronting to ask Jacobellis if she has learned about humility in the past four years, or perhaps you don’t need to be humble in America if you can redeem yourself.

Another athlete, Lindsey Vonn, was celebrated in the American press after she appeared in the recent Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. Vonn was esteemed as a rare cross of grit and beauty, and revered after winning gold in downhill skiing despite injuring her shin before the games opened. Vonn triumphed over adversity and physical pain to redeem all the hours of training she dedicated. Her athleticism is commendable, but her fame has overshadowed teammate Julia Mancuso, who has won two silver medals in downhill events. In my mind, this reveals how Americans just don’t seem to care unless the story behind the triumph is theatrical and remarkable.

As an American I also share a love for a redemption story and admire those who succeed against the obstacles, but having missed the last five years of American redemption programming I am amazed by how thoroughly this story outline is employed. Nationalism is a quality Americans possess wholeheartedly and it’s no wonder why. From the Olympics to Wall Street, the idea of redemption is synonymous with the American Dream: Work Hard, and You Will Succeed.

Follow us on twitter:

www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
www.twitter.com/RoxyPismo