We as individuals generally vote in our own self interest. That is why the rhetoric coming from both campaigns is mostly about "the economy and jobs".
In an ideal world, the economy is vibrant and everyone who wants and/or needs to work has a good job. But in that ideal world, that vibrant economy does not consume resources in an unsustainable way, does not pollute or degrade our planet, and those jobs provide a positive contribution to our collective economic culture.
In the real world, the candidates must contend with constituents that have and need jobs that do pollute and degrade our planet. And they need votes. So, we see them pandering to those interests though we know that they know that those interests are not in the best interest of our nation or planet.
The example that we have seen recently is the pandering to the "coal states." Most areas of coal production have few jobs available that are not in the coal industry. Scaling back on coal would devastate the economy in these areas. So the candidates give speeches and air ads that support those jobs.
As in my last blog post, I see this as an opportunity to transition these industries into sustainable energy. By providing a commitment to a continued transition away from coal production and into sustainable energy production in these areas, coal jobs could be protected in the short term, and workers could be retrained for the jobs of our energy future.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Transition some military spending to new energy technologies
There is plenty of discussion on the budget and the deficit and the debt. There are competing viewpoints on what to do about it. The "jobs" issue adds a very powerful influence on the debate. The deficit hawks want to cut spending, but do not want to add revenue to the mix, having an aversion to raising taxes, especially on the wealthy they see as the job creators.
The inconsistency in this argument comes when there is a discussion of the Defense budget. The deficit hawks are also defense hawks. They talk about our need to provide for national security. The military has programs that they would like to discontinue but Congress keeps them going. Why? Because it is a jobs thing. They are really most concerned about how cuts will affect the Military Industrial Complex, specifically those military contractors in their districts. The military has conveniently spread the wealth of their contracts nationwide so each congressperson has their own district's jobs to protect.
So, my idea is to create a system that transitions a percentage of military contracts to civilian purposes that aid in non-military national security advancement by way of energy independence, keeping these coddled contractors employing their people while moving us forward as a country.
One example of this would be to convert to progressive energy production and efficiency projects. Solar Photo Voltaic and LED lighting production are examples. If manufacturers could quickly retrofit factories during World War II we can do it now.
We spend so much more than the rest of the world on the military, we can afford to cut back on that spending and re-purpose it for our future and keep people employed at the same time.
The inconsistency in this argument comes when there is a discussion of the Defense budget. The deficit hawks are also defense hawks. They talk about our need to provide for national security. The military has programs that they would like to discontinue but Congress keeps them going. Why? Because it is a jobs thing. They are really most concerned about how cuts will affect the Military Industrial Complex, specifically those military contractors in their districts. The military has conveniently spread the wealth of their contracts nationwide so each congressperson has their own district's jobs to protect.
So, my idea is to create a system that transitions a percentage of military contracts to civilian purposes that aid in non-military national security advancement by way of energy independence, keeping these coddled contractors employing their people while moving us forward as a country.
One example of this would be to convert to progressive energy production and efficiency projects. Solar Photo Voltaic and LED lighting production are examples. If manufacturers could quickly retrofit factories during World War II we can do it now.
We spend so much more than the rest of the world on the military, we can afford to cut back on that spending and re-purpose it for our future and keep people employed at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)