President Says Pollution OK, Where Is Green Party?
September 3rd, 2011
President Obama in another move to the right has decided to squash tighter air pollution quality regulations. This is going to throw supporters of the Democrats who could say that at least when it came to the environment that the President was on the right side, over the brink. Environmental supporters now have to choose between a president who gives lip service to the cause of protecting the environment and Republicans who seem to have a slash and burn approach. It is a sad choice. We really need a Green Party to step up to the bat here. The environmental lobby is their natural constituency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/science/earth/03air.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
It seems that the president is being stampeded by the poor jobs report and pressure from Republicans and industry lobbyists. This is not going to help. Most studies show that environmental legislation is revenue neutral and ultimately benefits all in the long run with better health.
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/bp69.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/ex_post/pdf/costs.pdf
Studies show that industry quickly adapts to the new regulations and innovation in technology spurred by the regulation brings cost down, in almost all cases to 50% less than initial estimates or more. Why the opposition to better air, water and a cleaner world in general? It seems to me that it is either based on faulty data, misconceptions about where inflationary factors come from, or simple resistance to change.
Why is the President giving in on this point? He is either being stampeded in which case he really doesn't deserve to be president or he has developed a Clintonesque strategy of moving to the right to out maneuver his opposition. The problem with this strategy is that the Republicans are so far to the right now that it will be impossible to outdo them in that direction. The best he can hope for is a retention of some of the unaffiliated voters in the middle of the road with the expectation that the voters on the left stick with him because they have nowhere else to go. That has often been a Democrat strategy and is one of the main reasons why the country needs a strong party on the left. If progressive Democrats, social democrats, labor activists, the Green party, other environmentalists, gay activists, Afro-Americans, Hispanics and feminists all formed one party, although it would be a bit of a shouting match, at least it would represent the real interests of a good 25-35% of the country. Republicans would have an equal amount and the Democrats could be the party of the so called center.
Perhaps the Tea Party would then break with the Republicans and we could have 4 genuine parties representing the major groupings. As it stands the two parties simply cannot properly represent their left and right wings without butchering the positions of one or the other. Even if the Republicans manage to keep the Tea Party, this would divide the electorate into roughly thirds and the Democrats would have to form a coalition with the Progressive party to gain power. Unfortunately for a true coalition we need a parliamentary system instead of this winner take all system. What a coalition means in this system is basically one party joining the other party which would not be much different than what we have now, except there would be a basis for breaking with the coalition partners in the next election if promises were not kept.
No comments:
Post a Comment