The Bigger Picture
Published on September 17th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I had originally written a column for this week that discussed my impressions about the nationally televised speech on healthcare reform that I watched President Obama deliver to a joint session of the US Congress and the American public last week.
But at the end of the day I just couldn’t bring myself to submit it to my editor. Why? Because it wasn’t really an honest opinion column about what I heard and saw on TV last Wednesday night. Mind you I didn’t fabricate anything or express any opinions in that column that weren’t sincere. It wasn’t honest because I wasn’t acknowledging the things I had seen and heard that night which most disconcerted me. So today I deleted it.
As many of you are no doubt aware, I am a lifelong member of the United States Republican Party. I joined the Republican Party while I was still in high school; before I was even allowed to legally vote in a state or national election. Through the years I have raised money for and campaigned on behalf of numerous Republican Party candidates for local, state and national offices. I haven’t always liked or agreed with many of the positions taken by Republican politicians I have supported, but I have also never voted for a Republican candidate simply because they were a member of the party.
Like many of you and many of my fellow American citizens, I have always tried to put the needs of my state or country ahead of partisan politics. I take our freedom to vote for the people we want as our political and government leaders very seriously because many of our global brethren don’t have the same freedom to elect their leaders that we have. Our democratic freedoms aren’t rights; they are privileges! That is why we have both a duty to exercise our right to vote and a responsibility to vote for candidates we believe are best suited for the job, regardless of their political party affiliations.
My own personal sense of responsibility to vote for the person best suited for the political office is what has led me to support and vote for Democratic, Independent and 3rd Party political candidates from time to time. And although I was both an early and fervent supporter of Barack Obama when he became a candidate for US President on 10 February 2007, I didn’t actually vote for him in the 4 March 2008 Super Tuesday Texas state primary. I cast my absentee ballot for Senator John McCain on that day.
I did so because I am still a registered member of the Republican Party and as such, I had a duty to vote in the Republican primary and a responsibility to vote for the Republican candidate best suited for America’s highest elected office. I did so knowing that President Obama needed my vote more than Senator McCain because he was in a very tight race with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while Senator McCain had already clinched the Republican Party Presidential nomination. I did so because I had no intention of leaving the Republican Party even though I was campaigning for President Obama and would subsequently vote for him in the November 2008 General Election.
I have been a frequent and vocal critic of state and national Republican Party political office holders as well as many of the party’s political positions on foreign and domestic policies for some time now. But I have never been ashamed to acknowledge my Republican Party affiliation or the fact that I bear some responsibility for the mistakes Republican Party leaders made while they controlled the reins of political power in the US. I was part of the minority of Americans who voted Bush and Cheney into office back in 2000 and I was very pleased that the party was in control of the US Congress as well.
But for the first time in my life, last Wednesday night I was ashamed to acknowledge that I was a member of the Republican Party. Although I have been very upset with the Republican Party because it supported the decision to invade Iraq and it implemented fiscally irresponsible policies while it controlled Congress, I have never once shied away from the fact that I am also a lifelong member of it. Until now that is.
The reason why the original column that I had written for publication today wasn’t honest was because I had avoided any mention of this in it. But the real reason I wasn’t satisfied with the original column and never submitted it wasn’t because of my concern about being honest with my readers; it was because I couldn’t be honest with you until I first got honest with myself. And me being honest with me is easier said than done.
So what exactly happened last Wednesday night that caused me to initiate some serious soul searching as regards my long held political affiliation with the Republican Party? Well back in the states the news media has focused on an unseemly outburst by a Republican Congressional Representative from the great state of South Carolina. As you may or may not know, South Carolina is also the home state of an embattled Republican governor who has become more famous for his romantic prose than his political prose.
But I was watching President Obama speak when South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson began yelling “You lie!” at our President during his health care speech and the truth is, it didn’t really disturb me that much. While I do remember thinking that the outburst was rude and discourteous, I wasn’t exactly shocked by Representative Wilson’s behavior given the oft times contentious behavior I have seen displayed by other politicians both Republicans and Democrats.
President Obama handled it well too. He paused and calmly but firmly responded “No that isn’t true” and then resumed delivering his speech. No, it was something more subtle that led to my feelings of shame that I’ll discuss next week.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Goodbye Teddy Kennedy
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 10th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to pick up where I left off last week and my discussion of the role that Ted Kennedy’s grandfathers played in his political education.
Whereas John and Robert Kennedy possessed formidable oratorical skills and relished political campaigning like their maternal grandfather, Honey Fitz, Ted was more like his grandfather P.J. While Ted also had excellent oratorical skills, he was much more comfortable dealing with people and politicians alike on a one to one basis than he was making lofty and inspiring speeches to crowds of supporters. His grandfathers schooled young Ted in the art of shaking hands and never forgetting a face but also taught him to remember he had a duty and responsibility to help those less fortunate than himself.
But it wasn’t until after he lost the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination to President Jimmy Carter, that Ted Kennedy’s considerable talents as an able politician and true public servant became apparent. Ted Kennedy recruited and hired the best and brightest people for his legislative staff and they wanted to work for him because he also had a reputation for working with his political opponents to get things done. The list of Ted’s former staff members who serve in government reads like a Who’s Who of public servants from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Obama Presidential advisors like Melody Barnes, President Obama's top domestic policy adviser and White House Counsel Gregory Craig, with nary a whiff of scandal touching any of Ted’s staffers.
But the real mark of Ted Kennedy as a man and as a true public servant was his common touch and willingness to always help those less fortunate than he. Most of the 70,000 people who stood in line for hours last week to say goodbye to him at the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library in Cambridge Massachusetts, were just ordinary people whose lives Ted had touched and enriched during his public life.
Among them was a man named Jud Fokum, a native of Cameroon who had once asked Ted for assistance while he was a student in the US. Jud’s dilemma was that his US college tuition and living expenses were tied up in red tape back in Cameroon, so he asked if Senator Ted Kennedy would be willing to help him even though he wasn’t a US citizen or a Massachusetts voter. A few days later, after Ted Kennedy had placed a phone call to the President of Cameroon, Jud received his long delayed university funds.
Imagine that, a wealthy and powerful politician taking the time to help someone, in this case a foreign national, anonymously and with absolutely no tangible political or financial benefit for himself in doing so. Jud Fokum’s story is only one of the hundreds about Ted Kennedy that I personally know of and rest assured there are thousands more like it that I haven’t heard or that the general public will never know about.
While I was opposed to more of Ted Kennedy’s political positions than I ever favoured, much like John McCain I have always regarded him as one of the most able politicians and admirable men ever elected to political office in America. But more than that, Ted Kennedy was also one of the most honorable and giving persons I have ever known. He had his faults and he made a lot of mistakes during the course of his lifetime, but then who of us doesn’t have some faults or hasn’t made any number of mistakes?
Getting his sons elected President was important to Joe Kennedy because of what he believed election to this office would mean for his sons, but also because of what their election would mean to him, his family and the general public’s image of his family. His son John was elected President and Robert could very well have also been elected but for his untimely assassination during his first Presidential campaign. But I am of the opinion that the most important legacy for the Kennedy family was the type of life that was led by the only son of Joe who was soundly defeated the one time he ran for US President.
Ted Kennedy accepted this defeat with grace and dignity and then went on to have a decidedly positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. During the course of his 47 years as a legislator, Ted Kennedy introduced 2,500 bills and saw more than 550 of them enacted into law. Nor was he content to just get his name on a law and then move on to new legislation. He was always open to revisiting laws he had already passed and revising or improving them because he believed that lasting progress only comes in half steps. He spent his life fighting for universal healthcare and although he didn’t accomplish this goal he was able to make some headway with his program for pregnant women and new mothers that now covers 8.7 million working class women and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than 7 million children.
As for the Kennedy family legacy, as the sole surviving male, Ted served as the family’s patriarch and as a surrogate father to his fatherless nieces and nephews for over 40 years. The fact that virtually all of Joe Kennedy’s 30 grandchildren are currently involved in some form of public service work is both a reflection of the example Ted set as the Kennedy family’s patriarch and the values he helped instill in those grandchildren. That Ted Kennedy’s funeral attracted the kind of media attention that only attends those who have served as America’s President is a testament to Ted’s life of service to those less fortunate than him. I will end this column with a limerick I wrote about Ted;
The Kennedy children numbered one less than ten,
Their parents instilled a duty to serve in them.
But of all of their children who answered this call,
Ted’s service to others was the greatest of all.
Published on September 10th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to pick up where I left off last week and my discussion of the role that Ted Kennedy’s grandfathers played in his political education.
Whereas John and Robert Kennedy possessed formidable oratorical skills and relished political campaigning like their maternal grandfather, Honey Fitz, Ted was more like his grandfather P.J. While Ted also had excellent oratorical skills, he was much more comfortable dealing with people and politicians alike on a one to one basis than he was making lofty and inspiring speeches to crowds of supporters. His grandfathers schooled young Ted in the art of shaking hands and never forgetting a face but also taught him to remember he had a duty and responsibility to help those less fortunate than himself.
But it wasn’t until after he lost the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination to President Jimmy Carter, that Ted Kennedy’s considerable talents as an able politician and true public servant became apparent. Ted Kennedy recruited and hired the best and brightest people for his legislative staff and they wanted to work for him because he also had a reputation for working with his political opponents to get things done. The list of Ted’s former staff members who serve in government reads like a Who’s Who of public servants from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Obama Presidential advisors like Melody Barnes, President Obama's top domestic policy adviser and White House Counsel Gregory Craig, with nary a whiff of scandal touching any of Ted’s staffers.
But the real mark of Ted Kennedy as a man and as a true public servant was his common touch and willingness to always help those less fortunate than he. Most of the 70,000 people who stood in line for hours last week to say goodbye to him at the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library in Cambridge Massachusetts, were just ordinary people whose lives Ted had touched and enriched during his public life.
Among them was a man named Jud Fokum, a native of Cameroon who had once asked Ted for assistance while he was a student in the US. Jud’s dilemma was that his US college tuition and living expenses were tied up in red tape back in Cameroon, so he asked if Senator Ted Kennedy would be willing to help him even though he wasn’t a US citizen or a Massachusetts voter. A few days later, after Ted Kennedy had placed a phone call to the President of Cameroon, Jud received his long delayed university funds.
Imagine that, a wealthy and powerful politician taking the time to help someone, in this case a foreign national, anonymously and with absolutely no tangible political or financial benefit for himself in doing so. Jud Fokum’s story is only one of the hundreds about Ted Kennedy that I personally know of and rest assured there are thousands more like it that I haven’t heard or that the general public will never know about.
While I was opposed to more of Ted Kennedy’s political positions than I ever favoured, much like John McCain I have always regarded him as one of the most able politicians and admirable men ever elected to political office in America. But more than that, Ted Kennedy was also one of the most honorable and giving persons I have ever known. He had his faults and he made a lot of mistakes during the course of his lifetime, but then who of us doesn’t have some faults or hasn’t made any number of mistakes?
Getting his sons elected President was important to Joe Kennedy because of what he believed election to this office would mean for his sons, but also because of what their election would mean to him, his family and the general public’s image of his family. His son John was elected President and Robert could very well have also been elected but for his untimely assassination during his first Presidential campaign. But I am of the opinion that the most important legacy for the Kennedy family was the type of life that was led by the only son of Joe who was soundly defeated the one time he ran for US President.
Ted Kennedy accepted this defeat with grace and dignity and then went on to have a decidedly positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. During the course of his 47 years as a legislator, Ted Kennedy introduced 2,500 bills and saw more than 550 of them enacted into law. Nor was he content to just get his name on a law and then move on to new legislation. He was always open to revisiting laws he had already passed and revising or improving them because he believed that lasting progress only comes in half steps. He spent his life fighting for universal healthcare and although he didn’t accomplish this goal he was able to make some headway with his program for pregnant women and new mothers that now covers 8.7 million working class women and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than 7 million children.
As for the Kennedy family legacy, as the sole surviving male, Ted served as the family’s patriarch and as a surrogate father to his fatherless nieces and nephews for over 40 years. The fact that virtually all of Joe Kennedy’s 30 grandchildren are currently involved in some form of public service work is both a reflection of the example Ted set as the Kennedy family’s patriarch and the values he helped instill in those grandchildren. That Ted Kennedy’s funeral attracted the kind of media attention that only attends those who have served as America’s President is a testament to Ted’s life of service to those less fortunate than him. I will end this column with a limerick I wrote about Ted;
The Kennedy children numbered one less than ten,
Their parents instilled a duty to serve in them.
But of all of their children who answered this call,
Ted’s service to others was the greatest of all.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Ted Kennedy's passing
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 3rd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Have you ever planned to do, or maybe write, about something and then something happens that makes what you were planning to do or write about seem insignificant? Well that is exactly what happened to me this week. I’d like to say the column I planned to write for today will appear next week instead, but I can’t say for certain. Truth be known, it is entirely possible that column will never get written.
Why? Because as I write this an American political icon, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, the “Last Lion in the Senate”, is being laid to rest near the graves of his brothers, Robert and John at Arlington National Cemetery. But the man who gave Ted this moniker during last year’s heated Presidential contest, wasn’t President Obama, it was Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. McCain said Kennedy was the “last lion in the Senate because he remains the single most effective member of the Senate.”
Ted was also the lone surviving son of Joseph (Joe) P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald, but he learned more about the art of politics from his two grandfathers, East Boston “backroom” political boss P. J. Kennedy and Boston Mayor John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, than he did from his powerful and politically connected father. But in order to understand the role that Ted Kennedy has played in America’s recent political history, its equally important that one understands the history of America’s most famous family.
P.J. Kennedy and “Honey Fitz” were both sons of Irish immigrants who left Ireland during the potato famine and immigrated to America. Honey Fitz got involved in Democratic Party politics shortly after he dropped out of Harvard Medical School. Honey Fitz was a stylish showman with a gift of gab and warmth of character that in turn led to his nickname, Honey Fitz. In other words, Honey Fitz was a natural politician, so it wasn’t long before he became the most recognizable Irish-American on Boston’s North End. Honey Fitz also loved to make speeches that were often referred to as “Fitzblarney” and that got him elected Boston’s mayor 3 times around the turn of the twentieth century.
On the other hand, P. J. Kennedy’s involvement in politics came much later in his career because he had been forced to leave school at the age of 14 to support his widowed mother and sisters as a dockworker. P. J. then used the money he saved from this job to buy a saloon on Haymarket Square and launch his career in the liquor business. Before he was thirty his liquor importing business, P.J. Kennedy and Co. was the largest in Boston.
P.J. also had a reputation for giving money and advice to less fortunate Irish emigrants, which made him very popular and respected in the East Boston ward where he lived and worked. This popularity and respect led to P.J.’s involvement in politics and he was subsequently elected to 5 terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and 3 more terms in the Massachusetts Senate.
But in contrast to Honey Fitz, P.J. Kennedy didn’t really like all the campaigning and speech making required of politicians. P.J. was much more at home with the backroom wheeling and dealing of ward politics so after he left the Massachusetts Senate in 1896, he spent the remainder of his political career as the Democratic political boss of Boston’s Ward 2 and in appointed positions as elections and fire commissioner.
Joseph Kennedy was P.J.’s eldest child and only son and thanks to P.J.’s business success, Joe was able to get the education that P.J. never had an opportunity to get. Although Joe never started a business from scratch like his father did, Joe nonetheless proved to be a savvy business entrepreneur and financial investor with a keen eye for value. Joe first used his financial expertise and insider information to make a small fortune for him and his Irish-American colleagues during the 1920’s stock market boom. Then, unlike most other wealthy Americans, Joe vastly increased the Kennedy family’s wealth during the Depression years through his investments in real estate.
Joe was a friend and prominent supporter of President Franklin Roosevelt but cut short his own political career when, as America’s British Ambassador, he advocated negotiating with Hitler and disparaged Britain’s fight against the Nazi’s by telling the Boston Globe that “Democracy is finished in England. It may be here.” A political pariah, Joe subsequently devoted himself and his fortune to promoting the political career of his eldest son, Joe Jr. But after Joe Jr.’s untimely death during World War II, Joe Sr. only became more determined to see both of his remaining eldest sons, John and Robert become President of the United States. As a result, Joe’s youngest son Ted spent most of his time learning about politics from his grandfathers, rather than his Dad and brothers.
When Ted’s father, Joe, married his mother, Rose, the eldest daughter of Boston’s most recognizable politician in 1914, the marriage also resulted in the merging of Boston’s two most powerful political families. While this Boston political union and the influence of Irish-American politicians in Chicago, New York, Pittsburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey coupled with Joe Sr.’s considerable financial resources definitely aided John and Robert in their respective bids to become US President, it was Joe Sr.’s often overlooked youngest son, Ted, who I believe benefitted most from his two grandfathers accumulated wisdom borne of their many years of political experience.
The funeral is about to begin so I must now take my leave and join millions of my fellow Americans who will say goodbye to a true statesmen and one of the greatest American legislators of all time. Some of these Americans are the poor he tried to help while others are wealthy or famous, but most of them are just ordinary American citizens, a testament to Ted Kennedy’s common touch. I will conclude my thoughts about Ted Kennedy, his legacy and America’s most famous family in next week’s column.
Published on September 3rd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Have you ever planned to do, or maybe write, about something and then something happens that makes what you were planning to do or write about seem insignificant? Well that is exactly what happened to me this week. I’d like to say the column I planned to write for today will appear next week instead, but I can’t say for certain. Truth be known, it is entirely possible that column will never get written.
Why? Because as I write this an American political icon, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, the “Last Lion in the Senate”, is being laid to rest near the graves of his brothers, Robert and John at Arlington National Cemetery. But the man who gave Ted this moniker during last year’s heated Presidential contest, wasn’t President Obama, it was Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. McCain said Kennedy was the “last lion in the Senate because he remains the single most effective member of the Senate.”
Ted was also the lone surviving son of Joseph (Joe) P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald, but he learned more about the art of politics from his two grandfathers, East Boston “backroom” political boss P. J. Kennedy and Boston Mayor John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, than he did from his powerful and politically connected father. But in order to understand the role that Ted Kennedy has played in America’s recent political history, its equally important that one understands the history of America’s most famous family.
P.J. Kennedy and “Honey Fitz” were both sons of Irish immigrants who left Ireland during the potato famine and immigrated to America. Honey Fitz got involved in Democratic Party politics shortly after he dropped out of Harvard Medical School. Honey Fitz was a stylish showman with a gift of gab and warmth of character that in turn led to his nickname, Honey Fitz. In other words, Honey Fitz was a natural politician, so it wasn’t long before he became the most recognizable Irish-American on Boston’s North End. Honey Fitz also loved to make speeches that were often referred to as “Fitzblarney” and that got him elected Boston’s mayor 3 times around the turn of the twentieth century.
On the other hand, P. J. Kennedy’s involvement in politics came much later in his career because he had been forced to leave school at the age of 14 to support his widowed mother and sisters as a dockworker. P. J. then used the money he saved from this job to buy a saloon on Haymarket Square and launch his career in the liquor business. Before he was thirty his liquor importing business, P.J. Kennedy and Co. was the largest in Boston.
P.J. also had a reputation for giving money and advice to less fortunate Irish emigrants, which made him very popular and respected in the East Boston ward where he lived and worked. This popularity and respect led to P.J.’s involvement in politics and he was subsequently elected to 5 terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and 3 more terms in the Massachusetts Senate.
But in contrast to Honey Fitz, P.J. Kennedy didn’t really like all the campaigning and speech making required of politicians. P.J. was much more at home with the backroom wheeling and dealing of ward politics so after he left the Massachusetts Senate in 1896, he spent the remainder of his political career as the Democratic political boss of Boston’s Ward 2 and in appointed positions as elections and fire commissioner.
Joseph Kennedy was P.J.’s eldest child and only son and thanks to P.J.’s business success, Joe was able to get the education that P.J. never had an opportunity to get. Although Joe never started a business from scratch like his father did, Joe nonetheless proved to be a savvy business entrepreneur and financial investor with a keen eye for value. Joe first used his financial expertise and insider information to make a small fortune for him and his Irish-American colleagues during the 1920’s stock market boom. Then, unlike most other wealthy Americans, Joe vastly increased the Kennedy family’s wealth during the Depression years through his investments in real estate.
Joe was a friend and prominent supporter of President Franklin Roosevelt but cut short his own political career when, as America’s British Ambassador, he advocated negotiating with Hitler and disparaged Britain’s fight against the Nazi’s by telling the Boston Globe that “Democracy is finished in England. It may be here.” A political pariah, Joe subsequently devoted himself and his fortune to promoting the political career of his eldest son, Joe Jr. But after Joe Jr.’s untimely death during World War II, Joe Sr. only became more determined to see both of his remaining eldest sons, John and Robert become President of the United States. As a result, Joe’s youngest son Ted spent most of his time learning about politics from his grandfathers, rather than his Dad and brothers.
When Ted’s father, Joe, married his mother, Rose, the eldest daughter of Boston’s most recognizable politician in 1914, the marriage also resulted in the merging of Boston’s two most powerful political families. While this Boston political union and the influence of Irish-American politicians in Chicago, New York, Pittsburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey coupled with Joe Sr.’s considerable financial resources definitely aided John and Robert in their respective bids to become US President, it was Joe Sr.’s often overlooked youngest son, Ted, who I believe benefitted most from his two grandfathers accumulated wisdom borne of their many years of political experience.
The funeral is about to begin so I must now take my leave and join millions of my fellow Americans who will say goodbye to a true statesmen and one of the greatest American legislators of all time. Some of these Americans are the poor he tried to help while others are wealthy or famous, but most of them are just ordinary American citizens, a testament to Ted Kennedy’s common touch. I will conclude my thoughts about Ted Kennedy, his legacy and America’s most famous family in next week’s column.
What we can and should do as individual citizens
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 27th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to bring a temporary end to my dialogue about climate change by discussing what steps we and our political leaders should be taking to try to avert the worst consequences of this looming environmental catastrophe.
Make no mistake; while I know some skeptics still remain out there, the world is already beginning to suffer the ill effects of climate change due to rising global temperatures. The only real question is how long we as consumers as well as our political leaders will wait until we take action to avert the most catastrophic environmental and economic consequences of climate change.
Both we, as individuals, and our governments must make some difficult choices in the coming years. We can either continue to avoid voluntary steps to conserve energy and government policies that raise the price of fossil fuel derived products like petrol, electricity and plastics; or we can be forced to implement even more draconian measures a decade or so from now. Since I rather like the idea of having the freedom to choose what to do for relatively little additional cost, rather than being forced to do something at a much higher price later, here are a few suggestions for us and our political leaders.
1) Park the car and use public transport whenever and wherever possible.
While not all citizens have public transportation options like buses and trains available to them, it is completely irresponsible for those that do have such options to continue to use cars or SUVs to get to school or work. Sell that second or third car you own and start sharing the use of the family car. Plan your errands so that you make a single trip to multiple stores every few days. Sure it may be a bit inconvenient at times, but you can also console yourself by thinking about how much money you are saving every week by doing so. Then make sure you vote and campaign for politicians who want to invest more money in public transport.
I have a car but I only use it to drive out of the city and or to places where public transport is scant or unavailable. I plan trips into town so that I do my shopping in conjunction other errands thus minimizing the number of days I use my bus pass.
2) Push political leaders to change the way annual motor taxes are computed.
Since vehicles with larger engines usually use more petrol per kilometer traveled, a motor tax based on a vehicle’s engine size is a step in the right direction, but is at best only a half measure in terms of cutting carbon emissions. While this tax basis does encourage people to purchase more fuel efficient cars with smaller engines, it doesn’t provide all drivers with an incentive to cut down the number of kilometers they drive. But if the motor tax was computed based on the estimated carbon emissions per kilometer of a particular car engine and the number of kilometers travelled the previous year, then every car owner would have an incentive to reduce the kilometers they drive each year. If a person lives in an area without access to public transport, then they should receive a credit that will reduce their motor tax. But if someone living in a city with access to public transport elects to continue driving, why should we pay for the costs of environmental consequences associated with their carbon emissions?
3) Conserve electricity and get ready to pay more for what you do use.
It isn’t a matter of if we will start paying carbon taxes for the fossil fuel energy we use, only when and how much. Driving less reduces our petrol costs and the carbon taxes that will be placed on petrol. But since most of our carbon emissions are the result of electricity generated by coal, oil and gas; one should expect that carbon taxes will impact our costs for electricity as much, if not more, than petrol. Turning off lights and computers or buying more energy efficient appliances is a start; but what about that dishwasher and TV? Since dishwashers and TVs are the biggest users of electricity in most homes, what is wrong with families learning how to use the dishwasher less and sharing the use of one or two less TV sets?
4) Push politicians to base any carbon taxes on calculations of the minimum electricity needed to maintain an average household of 2, 4, 6 and 8 adults.
Pensioners and households that hold their use below these thresholds would get an energy credit, while those who live in large mansions and use lots of energy will pay more per kilowatt in carbon taxes for using more electricity than the minimum they need. This gives everyone an incentive to conserve energy but only financially penalizes those who continue to waste electricity.
5) Use less paper and plastic and recycle what you do use.
Pulp and paper producers are responsible for most of the carbon emissions due to the tropical deforestation which is occurring in Southeast Asia. But you can reduce demand for paper through recycling and many companies will pay you to stop sending you their bills by mail. Manufacturing plastics adds to global carbon emissions so making consumers pay for plastic shopping bags is a step in the right direction. But we also need to expand this tax to all plastic bottles or containers and get much better at recycling plastics so we can reduce production of them.
6) Eat more fresh vegetables and consume less meat.
Clearing tropical rainforests in favor of grazing land for cattle or for growing soybeans that are used for cattle feed and producing biofuel is a huge contributor to carbon emissions from the Amazon region of South America. I save money and eat healthier by consuming more veggies and reducing my meat expenditures.
Now ask yourself; “What actions will I tell my children I took to prevent climate change”?
Published on August 27th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to bring a temporary end to my dialogue about climate change by discussing what steps we and our political leaders should be taking to try to avert the worst consequences of this looming environmental catastrophe.
Make no mistake; while I know some skeptics still remain out there, the world is already beginning to suffer the ill effects of climate change due to rising global temperatures. The only real question is how long we as consumers as well as our political leaders will wait until we take action to avert the most catastrophic environmental and economic consequences of climate change.
Both we, as individuals, and our governments must make some difficult choices in the coming years. We can either continue to avoid voluntary steps to conserve energy and government policies that raise the price of fossil fuel derived products like petrol, electricity and plastics; or we can be forced to implement even more draconian measures a decade or so from now. Since I rather like the idea of having the freedom to choose what to do for relatively little additional cost, rather than being forced to do something at a much higher price later, here are a few suggestions for us and our political leaders.
1) Park the car and use public transport whenever and wherever possible.
While not all citizens have public transportation options like buses and trains available to them, it is completely irresponsible for those that do have such options to continue to use cars or SUVs to get to school or work. Sell that second or third car you own and start sharing the use of the family car. Plan your errands so that you make a single trip to multiple stores every few days. Sure it may be a bit inconvenient at times, but you can also console yourself by thinking about how much money you are saving every week by doing so. Then make sure you vote and campaign for politicians who want to invest more money in public transport.
I have a car but I only use it to drive out of the city and or to places where public transport is scant or unavailable. I plan trips into town so that I do my shopping in conjunction other errands thus minimizing the number of days I use my bus pass.
2) Push political leaders to change the way annual motor taxes are computed.
Since vehicles with larger engines usually use more petrol per kilometer traveled, a motor tax based on a vehicle’s engine size is a step in the right direction, but is at best only a half measure in terms of cutting carbon emissions. While this tax basis does encourage people to purchase more fuel efficient cars with smaller engines, it doesn’t provide all drivers with an incentive to cut down the number of kilometers they drive. But if the motor tax was computed based on the estimated carbon emissions per kilometer of a particular car engine and the number of kilometers travelled the previous year, then every car owner would have an incentive to reduce the kilometers they drive each year. If a person lives in an area without access to public transport, then they should receive a credit that will reduce their motor tax. But if someone living in a city with access to public transport elects to continue driving, why should we pay for the costs of environmental consequences associated with their carbon emissions?
3) Conserve electricity and get ready to pay more for what you do use.
It isn’t a matter of if we will start paying carbon taxes for the fossil fuel energy we use, only when and how much. Driving less reduces our petrol costs and the carbon taxes that will be placed on petrol. But since most of our carbon emissions are the result of electricity generated by coal, oil and gas; one should expect that carbon taxes will impact our costs for electricity as much, if not more, than petrol. Turning off lights and computers or buying more energy efficient appliances is a start; but what about that dishwasher and TV? Since dishwashers and TVs are the biggest users of electricity in most homes, what is wrong with families learning how to use the dishwasher less and sharing the use of one or two less TV sets?
4) Push politicians to base any carbon taxes on calculations of the minimum electricity needed to maintain an average household of 2, 4, 6 and 8 adults.
Pensioners and households that hold their use below these thresholds would get an energy credit, while those who live in large mansions and use lots of energy will pay more per kilowatt in carbon taxes for using more electricity than the minimum they need. This gives everyone an incentive to conserve energy but only financially penalizes those who continue to waste electricity.
5) Use less paper and plastic and recycle what you do use.
Pulp and paper producers are responsible for most of the carbon emissions due to the tropical deforestation which is occurring in Southeast Asia. But you can reduce demand for paper through recycling and many companies will pay you to stop sending you their bills by mail. Manufacturing plastics adds to global carbon emissions so making consumers pay for plastic shopping bags is a step in the right direction. But we also need to expand this tax to all plastic bottles or containers and get much better at recycling plastics so we can reduce production of them.
6) Eat more fresh vegetables and consume less meat.
Clearing tropical rainforests in favor of grazing land for cattle or for growing soybeans that are used for cattle feed and producing biofuel is a huge contributor to carbon emissions from the Amazon region of South America. I save money and eat healthier by consuming more veggies and reducing my meat expenditures.
Now ask yourself; “What actions will I tell my children I took to prevent climate change”?
Why do we act so surprised when we were warned
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 20th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Given the fact that I don’t believe the citizens of the EU or America are sufficiently alarmed about the consequences of climate change to sanction paying developing countries money in order to avoid them, I think the prospects for a meaningful global agreement to cut carbon emissions is still a long ways off.
I have come to this conclusion based on my experience dealing with problems and my research regarding how difficult it is to get political leaders into action addressing their countries domestic difficulties, much less any issues that are of global concern. Government leaders outside of America would have us believe that the current economic recession could not have been anticipated and that it is all America’s fault anyway, while politicians in the US blame greedy Wall Street bankers. Poppycock!
In 2005 economists in America were warning us that our easy access to mortgage financing and the consequent ever upward trajectory of housing prices was creating a “housing bubble” that was bound to burst sooner or later. These same economists were also warning American consumers that they were spending too much on non-essential luxuries with their credit cards and not saving enough money to sustain their finances in the event of another recession. Economists also warned us that we were putting too much faith in investment portfolios that were based on inflated stock market values.
The US Comptroller General was warning us in 2003 that our healthcare expenses were gobbling up an increasing percentage of our disposable income and that the US Congress could not afford to provide Americans with a prescription healthcare benefit. He pointed out that this new benefit was unfunded and would only further add to America’s Iraq War induced budget deficit. The US Comptroller also warned us that our Medicare and Social Security entitlement programs were underfunded and would collapse unless we raised the retirement age, raised taxes and or cut benefits. Did most American consumers listen? NO! Did most of America’s politicians listen? NO!
Closer to home here in Ireland, economists warned that the housing market was overheated back in 2005. Economists here also decried the rise in both public sector employment and wage agreements because these actions were based on government revenues that ballooned thanks to stamp duties from that same overheated housing market. Economist also noted that healthcare and pension costs were rising at unsustainable rates unless action was taken to restrict benefits or raise taxes. Did most Irish consumers listen? NO! Did most of Ireland’s politicians listen? NO!
Is America, and it’s very lose regulation of Wall Street and American financial institutions, a culprit in the current global economic recession? Yes it is! But America had many willing accomplices around the globe. Without the contributions of those accomplices, consumers as well as government officials in other countries, this recession would not have been such a global affair. If we want to avoid a repeat of the current economic nastiness, we need to first look at our own behaviour and contributions to this mess before we go off pointing fingers at others for what they did or didn’t do!
Unfortunately, what I see and hear in America, Ireland and in other countries, is a complete lack of any sense of personal responsibility or accountability on the part of individual citizens, much less their political leaders. But we can not avoid repeating the same mistakes again unless we first acknowledge that we played a part in them. Only then can we begin to learn from them so we don’t find ourselves repeating these same mistakes again in 15 or 20 years. I wish I saw more evidence of this; but frankly I don’t!
The truth is; most of the time consumers and their political leaders in all countries see what they want to see and hear only what they want to hear. Economists and others who are warning us to conserve or change our spendthrift ways when our economies are booming; are routinely ignored or treated as economic Cassandra’s and criticized for their “pessimistic” perspectives. Then when the crisis they warned us would happen is upon us we ask “How could this happen?” Then we begin playing the blame game.
The issue of climate change due to carbon emission fueled global warming represents a similar conundrum for the world’s consumers and politicians. Instead of respected economists warning us about our borrowing and spending habits, we have respected climate scientist warning us about the consequences of not reducing our carbon emissions. But while there has always been some level of disagreement among economists about the economic consequences of consumer and government profligacy, there is virtually no such disagreement among the world’s climate experts.
The fact that a composite of various climate change scenarios suggests severe environmental consequences, which will disrupt the lives of all living species, should make effectively dealing with this problem our number one policy issue. Mind you these scientific models are not the worst-case scenarios, but rather the most likely results of a catastrophic rise in global temperatures based on our present carbon emissions levels.
But, unfortunately for us and future generations, both consumers and politicians tend to respond and demand policy changes only when they find themselves in the middle of a crisis, such as the recent global economic meltdown. Climate change is more insidious because it is a creeping threat and the full dimensions of the crisis won’t be apparent for many years. But by the time rising temperatures and sea levels have become so obvious that even the most skeptical observers have been silenced, it will be too late to avert the catastrophic environmental and economic consequences of climate change.
The world won’t be facing several years of economic consequences like falling house prices or rising unemployment that governments can attempt to address with economic stimulus measures. Unless we act now, it will take decades to reverse the environmental consequences that await us and, more importantly, our children. Next week, I’ll discuss what we can do now.
Published on August 20th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Given the fact that I don’t believe the citizens of the EU or America are sufficiently alarmed about the consequences of climate change to sanction paying developing countries money in order to avoid them, I think the prospects for a meaningful global agreement to cut carbon emissions is still a long ways off.
I have come to this conclusion based on my experience dealing with problems and my research regarding how difficult it is to get political leaders into action addressing their countries domestic difficulties, much less any issues that are of global concern. Government leaders outside of America would have us believe that the current economic recession could not have been anticipated and that it is all America’s fault anyway, while politicians in the US blame greedy Wall Street bankers. Poppycock!
In 2005 economists in America were warning us that our easy access to mortgage financing and the consequent ever upward trajectory of housing prices was creating a “housing bubble” that was bound to burst sooner or later. These same economists were also warning American consumers that they were spending too much on non-essential luxuries with their credit cards and not saving enough money to sustain their finances in the event of another recession. Economists also warned us that we were putting too much faith in investment portfolios that were based on inflated stock market values.
The US Comptroller General was warning us in 2003 that our healthcare expenses were gobbling up an increasing percentage of our disposable income and that the US Congress could not afford to provide Americans with a prescription healthcare benefit. He pointed out that this new benefit was unfunded and would only further add to America’s Iraq War induced budget deficit. The US Comptroller also warned us that our Medicare and Social Security entitlement programs were underfunded and would collapse unless we raised the retirement age, raised taxes and or cut benefits. Did most American consumers listen? NO! Did most of America’s politicians listen? NO!
Closer to home here in Ireland, economists warned that the housing market was overheated back in 2005. Economists here also decried the rise in both public sector employment and wage agreements because these actions were based on government revenues that ballooned thanks to stamp duties from that same overheated housing market. Economist also noted that healthcare and pension costs were rising at unsustainable rates unless action was taken to restrict benefits or raise taxes. Did most Irish consumers listen? NO! Did most of Ireland’s politicians listen? NO!
Is America, and it’s very lose regulation of Wall Street and American financial institutions, a culprit in the current global economic recession? Yes it is! But America had many willing accomplices around the globe. Without the contributions of those accomplices, consumers as well as government officials in other countries, this recession would not have been such a global affair. If we want to avoid a repeat of the current economic nastiness, we need to first look at our own behaviour and contributions to this mess before we go off pointing fingers at others for what they did or didn’t do!
Unfortunately, what I see and hear in America, Ireland and in other countries, is a complete lack of any sense of personal responsibility or accountability on the part of individual citizens, much less their political leaders. But we can not avoid repeating the same mistakes again unless we first acknowledge that we played a part in them. Only then can we begin to learn from them so we don’t find ourselves repeating these same mistakes again in 15 or 20 years. I wish I saw more evidence of this; but frankly I don’t!
The truth is; most of the time consumers and their political leaders in all countries see what they want to see and hear only what they want to hear. Economists and others who are warning us to conserve or change our spendthrift ways when our economies are booming; are routinely ignored or treated as economic Cassandra’s and criticized for their “pessimistic” perspectives. Then when the crisis they warned us would happen is upon us we ask “How could this happen?” Then we begin playing the blame game.
The issue of climate change due to carbon emission fueled global warming represents a similar conundrum for the world’s consumers and politicians. Instead of respected economists warning us about our borrowing and spending habits, we have respected climate scientist warning us about the consequences of not reducing our carbon emissions. But while there has always been some level of disagreement among economists about the economic consequences of consumer and government profligacy, there is virtually no such disagreement among the world’s climate experts.
The fact that a composite of various climate change scenarios suggests severe environmental consequences, which will disrupt the lives of all living species, should make effectively dealing with this problem our number one policy issue. Mind you these scientific models are not the worst-case scenarios, but rather the most likely results of a catastrophic rise in global temperatures based on our present carbon emissions levels.
But, unfortunately for us and future generations, both consumers and politicians tend to respond and demand policy changes only when they find themselves in the middle of a crisis, such as the recent global economic meltdown. Climate change is more insidious because it is a creeping threat and the full dimensions of the crisis won’t be apparent for many years. But by the time rising temperatures and sea levels have become so obvious that even the most skeptical observers have been silenced, it will be too late to avert the catastrophic environmental and economic consequences of climate change.
The world won’t be facing several years of economic consequences like falling house prices or rising unemployment that governments can attempt to address with economic stimulus measures. Unless we act now, it will take decades to reverse the environmental consequences that await us and, more importantly, our children. Next week, I’ll discuss what we can do now.
What will happen in Copenhagen this December
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 13th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Even though I still plan to attend this year’s UN Global Climate Change Conference from 7-18 December in Copenhagen, I do not realistically expect a truly effective treaty or even a relatively toothless agreement to cut global carbon emissions to emerge from these negotiations. While the current global recession is being blamed by many politicians for a lack of progress on this global environmental issue, I believe the situation would be basically the same even if the global economy was booming.
Why do I feel this way? Well there are several loosely related factors that have led me to draw this somewhat pessimistic conclusion. It would be easy to blame various different politicians and political leaders but I think doing so is just an easy cop out for most of us. While many of them do bear some measure of responsibility for the current impasse on reducing carbon emissions, I think the lack of leadership many of them have demonstrated thus far is really a reflection of their constituents. Our politicians’ lack of political will to deal with the problem is due to the lack of urgency felt by citizens.
The reality of politics around the globe is that truly gifted political leaders like Barack Obama, with the ability to inspire people and marshal popular support from the general public for economically painful solutions to their countries problems, only come along once in a generation. The rest of the time our democratic political leaders tend to be people who attain their positions of power by using divide and conquer schemes to outwit their opponents and or manipulate public opinion. They aren’t inspiring natural leaders.
Authoritarian rulers also get to the top of their nations’ political heaps using the same methods that their democratic counter-parts use except they only have to contend with their countries’ business and social élites. They have an easier time of it than democratic leaders do, in terms of pushing unpopular policies on the general public, because they don’t have to worry about winning popular elections in the future.
But outside of a few extremely repressive regimes, even the most gifted and or authoritarian political leaders still have to be able to deal effectively with popular opposition to their policies if they want to maintain their grip on the reins of power.
President Obama is a gifted political leader who won election with a substantial majority of the popular and electoral vote. But he still has to grapple with winning the legislative support of Democratic members of Congress for his policy prescriptions, many of whom won election by only the barest of margins. Those legislators are worried about their prospects for winning re-election if their constituents or the business and social elites who fund their re-election campaigns decide they don’t like those policies.
As a result, the Climate Change bill that barely squeaked through the US Congress at the end of June was at best a very weak prescription for dealing with an ailment that is rapidly worsening. The good news is that the US Congress finally agreed to cut America’s carbon emissions, but the bad news is America will only cut them by 17% come the year 2020. Instead of a cap-and-trade system where credits for carbon emissions are sold to the highest bidders in order to provide money to offset increasing energy bills, the US will give 85% of them away to America’s biggest polluters for free.
While I agree with environmental NGOs that this bill fits the description of being “too little, too late”, I still can’t understand why Greenpeace actually came out against it. It has only taken the US Congress twenty years to get to the point where it was finally willing to play ball and cut America’s carbon emissions, so Greenpeace’s response, that no bill that cuts carbon emissions is preferable to a weak one, strikes me as disingenuous.
I am all for much stronger carbon reduction measures but please, let’s be a bit more realistic. A flawed climate change bill can still be tightened and strengthened in future years while some progress is made in the meantime; but no climate change legislation means no progress whatsoever until the political will exists for stronger measures. It is precisely this kind of thinking, on the part of some environmentalists, that leads many of their opponents to conclude that there is no point in negotiating with them.
Looking ahead to the UN Climate Change conference this December there are seven major entities that will be involved in negotiating a carbon emissions treaty to replace the ineffective Kyoto Protocol. The EU has the most political will to negotiate meaningful cuts in global carbon emissions, largely because a more educated citizenry that elects its leaders is more concerned about the consequences of climate change. Weak though it may be, there is at least some political will to address the problem of climate change due to global warming in America.
But what about the political will of China’s authoritarian regime? Or India’s democratically elected political leaders? Or the political will of Putin and Russia’s quasi-democratic political regime? These three countries are the largest sources of industrial carbon emissions outside of America and the EU and their combined emissions exceed those of the EU and America. Then we have the democratic governments of Brazil and Indonesia which have been unable to halt the illegal logging and clearing of their tropical rainforests even though they have designated them as “protected” national forests.
These seven entities account for approximately 70% of global carbon emissions, but the wealthier EU and America emit much more carbon per person than the denizens of the other five nations. The core of these countries collective position towards the EU and America is; that we need to “pay” them to reduce their emissions. Unfortunately for our global climate, I don’t see much evidence that the citizens of the EU or America are sufficiently alarmed about the consequences to be willing to pay to avoid them.
Published on August 13th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Even though I still plan to attend this year’s UN Global Climate Change Conference from 7-18 December in Copenhagen, I do not realistically expect a truly effective treaty or even a relatively toothless agreement to cut global carbon emissions to emerge from these negotiations. While the current global recession is being blamed by many politicians for a lack of progress on this global environmental issue, I believe the situation would be basically the same even if the global economy was booming.
Why do I feel this way? Well there are several loosely related factors that have led me to draw this somewhat pessimistic conclusion. It would be easy to blame various different politicians and political leaders but I think doing so is just an easy cop out for most of us. While many of them do bear some measure of responsibility for the current impasse on reducing carbon emissions, I think the lack of leadership many of them have demonstrated thus far is really a reflection of their constituents. Our politicians’ lack of political will to deal with the problem is due to the lack of urgency felt by citizens.
The reality of politics around the globe is that truly gifted political leaders like Barack Obama, with the ability to inspire people and marshal popular support from the general public for economically painful solutions to their countries problems, only come along once in a generation. The rest of the time our democratic political leaders tend to be people who attain their positions of power by using divide and conquer schemes to outwit their opponents and or manipulate public opinion. They aren’t inspiring natural leaders.
Authoritarian rulers also get to the top of their nations’ political heaps using the same methods that their democratic counter-parts use except they only have to contend with their countries’ business and social élites. They have an easier time of it than democratic leaders do, in terms of pushing unpopular policies on the general public, because they don’t have to worry about winning popular elections in the future.
But outside of a few extremely repressive regimes, even the most gifted and or authoritarian political leaders still have to be able to deal effectively with popular opposition to their policies if they want to maintain their grip on the reins of power.
President Obama is a gifted political leader who won election with a substantial majority of the popular and electoral vote. But he still has to grapple with winning the legislative support of Democratic members of Congress for his policy prescriptions, many of whom won election by only the barest of margins. Those legislators are worried about their prospects for winning re-election if their constituents or the business and social elites who fund their re-election campaigns decide they don’t like those policies.
As a result, the Climate Change bill that barely squeaked through the US Congress at the end of June was at best a very weak prescription for dealing with an ailment that is rapidly worsening. The good news is that the US Congress finally agreed to cut America’s carbon emissions, but the bad news is America will only cut them by 17% come the year 2020. Instead of a cap-and-trade system where credits for carbon emissions are sold to the highest bidders in order to provide money to offset increasing energy bills, the US will give 85% of them away to America’s biggest polluters for free.
While I agree with environmental NGOs that this bill fits the description of being “too little, too late”, I still can’t understand why Greenpeace actually came out against it. It has only taken the US Congress twenty years to get to the point where it was finally willing to play ball and cut America’s carbon emissions, so Greenpeace’s response, that no bill that cuts carbon emissions is preferable to a weak one, strikes me as disingenuous.
I am all for much stronger carbon reduction measures but please, let’s be a bit more realistic. A flawed climate change bill can still be tightened and strengthened in future years while some progress is made in the meantime; but no climate change legislation means no progress whatsoever until the political will exists for stronger measures. It is precisely this kind of thinking, on the part of some environmentalists, that leads many of their opponents to conclude that there is no point in negotiating with them.
Looking ahead to the UN Climate Change conference this December there are seven major entities that will be involved in negotiating a carbon emissions treaty to replace the ineffective Kyoto Protocol. The EU has the most political will to negotiate meaningful cuts in global carbon emissions, largely because a more educated citizenry that elects its leaders is more concerned about the consequences of climate change. Weak though it may be, there is at least some political will to address the problem of climate change due to global warming in America.
But what about the political will of China’s authoritarian regime? Or India’s democratically elected political leaders? Or the political will of Putin and Russia’s quasi-democratic political regime? These three countries are the largest sources of industrial carbon emissions outside of America and the EU and their combined emissions exceed those of the EU and America. Then we have the democratic governments of Brazil and Indonesia which have been unable to halt the illegal logging and clearing of their tropical rainforests even though they have designated them as “protected” national forests.
These seven entities account for approximately 70% of global carbon emissions, but the wealthier EU and America emit much more carbon per person than the denizens of the other five nations. The core of these countries collective position towards the EU and America is; that we need to “pay” them to reduce their emissions. Unfortunately for our global climate, I don’t see much evidence that the citizens of the EU or America are sufficiently alarmed about the consequences to be willing to pay to avoid them.
The role Chimerzilia must play
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 6th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my previous columns I have discussed some of the reasons why we must take more individual responsibility and action to address climate change due to global warming. But I am also painfully aware that there is only so much that we can do as individuals to reduce global carbon emissions. The world’s governments and their political leaders must do more as well but there is also one group of countries that is more important than all of the other countries in the world. I call them Chimerzilia.
Chimerzilia is the G5 of carbon emitters. Without their agreement to do more, and I mean a whole lot more, to reduce their countries’ carbon emissions there will be little, if any, reduction in global warming and the resultant climate change we will all experience.
Chimerzilia represents an amalgam of the names of the five countries (China, America, Brazil, Indonesia and India) that are the world’s largest carbon emitters and they are collectively responsible for more than 50% of global carbon emissions. Although the EU and Russia are also big carbon emitters and are responsible for more than 20% of global carbon emissions between them, the future depends on the G5 aka Chimerzilia. The G5 are also the 5 most populous countries in the world and, except Indonesia, among the world’s 7 largest nations by land area along with Australia, Canada and Russia.
Surprisingly, the reason why less industrialized countries like Brazil and Indonesia are in the top 5, instead of the more industrialized countries of the EU and Russia, is because of the amount of carbon that enters the earth’s atmosphere due to deforestation. While many of you may have also seen satellite photos of the smog blanketing Southeast Asia that was caused by fires in Indonesia a few years ago, what you may not know is that research shows that 70% to 90% of the fires were set by large, officially sanctioned companies to clear land for timber, oil-palm, and rubber plantations.
In Brazil tropical rainforest fires are set illegally in order to clear land for cattle grazing and agricultural uses after the best trees have been logged. But as a consequence of this activity the Amazon rainforest is losing its ability to stay green year round because the combination of deforestation and drought make it dangerously flammable. Scientists believe that as much as 50 percent of the Amazon could someday go up in smoke if these land clearing fires continue due to the lowering of the Amazon’s humidity levels.
But while the smoke and smog inducing carbon emissions that result from fires in the rainforests of Indonesia and Brazil causes problems for those suffering from breathing problems, all of the world’s citizens pay a price in the longer term. That’s because deforestation releases carbon stored in tropical peat and rainforests into the air while also reducing the earth’s ability to absorb existing levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
So the importance of the G5, aka Chimerzilia, is this; while China, America and India must agree to cut the 50% of the world’s carbon they are emitting, Brazil and Indonesia must also cut their own carbon emissions by reducing or eliminating deforestation, which is simultaneously eating up our global sponge for carbon emissions. Doing one or the other but not both is simply not an option if we want to avoid even more catastrophic consequences from climate change than the ones we are currently facing.
Both individually and collectively, the nations that compose the EU have done much more than most other countries around the world to address the problem of man-made global warming. I applaud the EU for their actions to reduce carbon emissions and hope that the EU will continue to push other countries like Russia to follow its lead.
But I am also a realist. Without the Chimerzilia G5, I see no hope for an effective global agreement to replace the largely ineffective Kyoto Protocol and address the causes of climate change. I hope that the political leaders of the EU will come to the same conclusion and not raise too big of a ruckus when America starts bilateral negotiations with the other members of the Chimerzilia G5. Like it or not, those negations have already begun albeit privately not publically. Yet!
While the EU is China’s largest trading partner, America is a close second and China is also the world’s largest holder of American debt securities. America is also the world’s largest economy and importer of foreign goods. America is also the world’s only true superpower notwithstanding the fact that China envisions becoming a superpower itself in the very near future. Indonesia’s largest trading partner is America but it is also the largest member of the 10 nation ASEAN which is China’s 3rd largest trading partner. India and Brazil’s largest trading partners are also China and America.
Is the picture I’m trying to paint here starting to emerge yet? The Chimerzilia G5 has a vested interest in maintaining these lucrative trade relationships among themselves as well as their trading relationships with the EU. But America has not been as aggressive as the EU when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, so the other members of Chimerzilia have decided that their own economic interests will be better served by any carbon emission reduction agreements that they can negotiate bilaterally with America.
I may be wrong, but I believe an effective post-Kyoto global climate change treaty will be one based on bilateral environmental agreements between and among the member states of the Chimerzilia G5. While the consequent global treaty won’t be the kind of agreement the world truly needs to stave off global warming, it may set the stage and provide a framework for later negotiations that will lead to much more aggressive action.
This, incidentally, is my most optimistic scenario for how the world’s political leaders might actually begin to deal with the issue of climate change. I will offer a much more realistic assessment next week.
Published on August 6th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my previous columns I have discussed some of the reasons why we must take more individual responsibility and action to address climate change due to global warming. But I am also painfully aware that there is only so much that we can do as individuals to reduce global carbon emissions. The world’s governments and their political leaders must do more as well but there is also one group of countries that is more important than all of the other countries in the world. I call them Chimerzilia.
Chimerzilia is the G5 of carbon emitters. Without their agreement to do more, and I mean a whole lot more, to reduce their countries’ carbon emissions there will be little, if any, reduction in global warming and the resultant climate change we will all experience.
Chimerzilia represents an amalgam of the names of the five countries (China, America, Brazil, Indonesia and India) that are the world’s largest carbon emitters and they are collectively responsible for more than 50% of global carbon emissions. Although the EU and Russia are also big carbon emitters and are responsible for more than 20% of global carbon emissions between them, the future depends on the G5 aka Chimerzilia. The G5 are also the 5 most populous countries in the world and, except Indonesia, among the world’s 7 largest nations by land area along with Australia, Canada and Russia.
Surprisingly, the reason why less industrialized countries like Brazil and Indonesia are in the top 5, instead of the more industrialized countries of the EU and Russia, is because of the amount of carbon that enters the earth’s atmosphere due to deforestation. While many of you may have also seen satellite photos of the smog blanketing Southeast Asia that was caused by fires in Indonesia a few years ago, what you may not know is that research shows that 70% to 90% of the fires were set by large, officially sanctioned companies to clear land for timber, oil-palm, and rubber plantations.
In Brazil tropical rainforest fires are set illegally in order to clear land for cattle grazing and agricultural uses after the best trees have been logged. But as a consequence of this activity the Amazon rainforest is losing its ability to stay green year round because the combination of deforestation and drought make it dangerously flammable. Scientists believe that as much as 50 percent of the Amazon could someday go up in smoke if these land clearing fires continue due to the lowering of the Amazon’s humidity levels.
But while the smoke and smog inducing carbon emissions that result from fires in the rainforests of Indonesia and Brazil causes problems for those suffering from breathing problems, all of the world’s citizens pay a price in the longer term. That’s because deforestation releases carbon stored in tropical peat and rainforests into the air while also reducing the earth’s ability to absorb existing levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
So the importance of the G5, aka Chimerzilia, is this; while China, America and India must agree to cut the 50% of the world’s carbon they are emitting, Brazil and Indonesia must also cut their own carbon emissions by reducing or eliminating deforestation, which is simultaneously eating up our global sponge for carbon emissions. Doing one or the other but not both is simply not an option if we want to avoid even more catastrophic consequences from climate change than the ones we are currently facing.
Both individually and collectively, the nations that compose the EU have done much more than most other countries around the world to address the problem of man-made global warming. I applaud the EU for their actions to reduce carbon emissions and hope that the EU will continue to push other countries like Russia to follow its lead.
But I am also a realist. Without the Chimerzilia G5, I see no hope for an effective global agreement to replace the largely ineffective Kyoto Protocol and address the causes of climate change. I hope that the political leaders of the EU will come to the same conclusion and not raise too big of a ruckus when America starts bilateral negotiations with the other members of the Chimerzilia G5. Like it or not, those negations have already begun albeit privately not publically. Yet!
While the EU is China’s largest trading partner, America is a close second and China is also the world’s largest holder of American debt securities. America is also the world’s largest economy and importer of foreign goods. America is also the world’s only true superpower notwithstanding the fact that China envisions becoming a superpower itself in the very near future. Indonesia’s largest trading partner is America but it is also the largest member of the 10 nation ASEAN which is China’s 3rd largest trading partner. India and Brazil’s largest trading partners are also China and America.
Is the picture I’m trying to paint here starting to emerge yet? The Chimerzilia G5 has a vested interest in maintaining these lucrative trade relationships among themselves as well as their trading relationships with the EU. But America has not been as aggressive as the EU when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, so the other members of Chimerzilia have decided that their own economic interests will be better served by any carbon emission reduction agreements that they can negotiate bilaterally with America.
I may be wrong, but I believe an effective post-Kyoto global climate change treaty will be one based on bilateral environmental agreements between and among the member states of the Chimerzilia G5. While the consequent global treaty won’t be the kind of agreement the world truly needs to stave off global warming, it may set the stage and provide a framework for later negotiations that will lead to much more aggressive action.
This, incidentally, is my most optimistic scenario for how the world’s political leaders might actually begin to deal with the issue of climate change. I will offer a much more realistic assessment next week.
Doing our part to reduce carbon emmisions
The Bigger Picture
Published on July 30th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to continue my discussion about the need for all of us as families and as individuals to take more aggressive steps to deal with climate change caused by global warming. Even though some of us are already doing some of the easier things to reduce our energy consumption that I mentioned in previous columns, precious few of us have actually altered our lifestyles in any kind of meaningful way.
Turning out the lights, lowering the thermostat and buying more energy efficient appliances represent minor tweaks to our daily living that reduce our carbon emmisions and save us money as well. But parking our cars, or selling that second (or third) automobile our family owns, and taking public transportation to work or school embodies a much more significant reduction in our carbon emissions. Granted, taking these kinds of steps means that some of us, or our family members, will be “inconvenienced” from time to time, but we will also realize significant cost savings by taking such actions.
I must say that I can’t help but laugh whenever I hear someone patting themselves on the back for their environmental consciousness after having purchased a hybrid or other more fuel efficient automobile. That’s because when I follow-up with a question about why they don’t use public transportation instead, the usual response is that they don’t like waiting for the bus or train. So despite the fact that owning and operating a car to serve one’s transportation needs is also much more expensive, many of us still refuse to use public transport instead because we don’t like to be inconvenienced.
If a friend or family member told us they wouldn’t come by to pick us up on the way to a party because it was inconvenient, wouldn’t we think they were being selfish and inconsiderate if not downright rude? The answer is obvious! So why shouldn’t our children and grandchildren think we were being just as selfish and inconsiderate because we refused to use public transportation in an effort to reduce our individual contributions to global warming? Humph! Most of us will probably just lie and blame other people, including our political leaders, instead of admitting the truth about our own behaviour.
Maybe some of us are comfortable with the idea of lying to our children and grandchildren, lest they think ill of us for our selfish and inconsiderate behaviour. Then of course there are those of us who will try to justify continuing our energy wasting, carbon emitting lifestyles by arguing that we shouldn’t have to alter them because we can’t really make much of a difference by ourselves. This is similar to the justification some of us try to use for not exercising our right to vote. “It’s inconvenient”, “I don’t have time” and or “My vote won’t really make a difference anyway.” Bulls—t!
I happen to prefer another alternative. I prefer to be part of the solution instead of continuing to be a part of the problem. I choose to try to change my lifestyle in ways that significantly reduce my own contribution to global carbon emissions. One of the key benefits of this approach is that I won’t have to lie to my children and or grandchildren about the part I played in the climate change consequences they will have to adapt to.
Notice I underlined the word will. That is because even if the world stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, our lack of action to reduce these emissions over the past twenty years means that global temperatures will continue to rise for at least another decade or more. So given the fact that we are currently only trying to negotiate a climate change treaty that will reduce the rate of increase in such emissions followed by a gradual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over the next forty years, both current and future generations will experience the consequences of climate change due to global warming.
Make no mistake, coping with these consequences will also prove to be very costly to all nations, some more than others. Unfortunately it will be the poorest counties and poorest people in this world who will suffer the most severe consequences even though they have not actually contributed much to global warming. Ironically, it is those countries and people that have benefitted most from fossil fueled economic development who will suffer less severe impacts and will be able to afford to adapt to climate change.
Polar melting and rising sea levels have already led to relocations of several Eskimo villages in North America. Who do you think is paying for the costs of these relocations? The Eskimos themselves as well as American and Canadian taxpayers are paying for these relocations. But these Canadian and Alaskan natives are the lucky ones. Who do you think will pay for the relocations of millions of poor people who currently live in low-lying costal areas of Bangladesh and other Southeast Asian countries?
By doing my part to reduce my own carbon footprint I don’t have to feel guilty about the harmful consequences that others will suffer and I can be a morally legitimate participant in the debate about who should pay to mitigate these consequences. But just like those who do not vote, if I don’t do my part then I have no right to voice my opinions about who should pay and how best to adapt to the consequences of climate change.
Morality aside, there is another important reason why we should all do more as individuals to reduce our carbon emissions. While doing so may be inconvenient at times, in both the near term and in the long run it will also save us money. Money that we and our families can put to other uses and that we will also need down the road to pay for the costs of adapting to climate change if nothing else.
Next week I will discuss the role Chimerzilia must play in reducing carbon emissions.
Published on July 30th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to continue my discussion about the need for all of us as families and as individuals to take more aggressive steps to deal with climate change caused by global warming. Even though some of us are already doing some of the easier things to reduce our energy consumption that I mentioned in previous columns, precious few of us have actually altered our lifestyles in any kind of meaningful way.
Turning out the lights, lowering the thermostat and buying more energy efficient appliances represent minor tweaks to our daily living that reduce our carbon emmisions and save us money as well. But parking our cars, or selling that second (or third) automobile our family owns, and taking public transportation to work or school embodies a much more significant reduction in our carbon emissions. Granted, taking these kinds of steps means that some of us, or our family members, will be “inconvenienced” from time to time, but we will also realize significant cost savings by taking such actions.
I must say that I can’t help but laugh whenever I hear someone patting themselves on the back for their environmental consciousness after having purchased a hybrid or other more fuel efficient automobile. That’s because when I follow-up with a question about why they don’t use public transportation instead, the usual response is that they don’t like waiting for the bus or train. So despite the fact that owning and operating a car to serve one’s transportation needs is also much more expensive, many of us still refuse to use public transport instead because we don’t like to be inconvenienced.
If a friend or family member told us they wouldn’t come by to pick us up on the way to a party because it was inconvenient, wouldn’t we think they were being selfish and inconsiderate if not downright rude? The answer is obvious! So why shouldn’t our children and grandchildren think we were being just as selfish and inconsiderate because we refused to use public transportation in an effort to reduce our individual contributions to global warming? Humph! Most of us will probably just lie and blame other people, including our political leaders, instead of admitting the truth about our own behaviour.
Maybe some of us are comfortable with the idea of lying to our children and grandchildren, lest they think ill of us for our selfish and inconsiderate behaviour. Then of course there are those of us who will try to justify continuing our energy wasting, carbon emitting lifestyles by arguing that we shouldn’t have to alter them because we can’t really make much of a difference by ourselves. This is similar to the justification some of us try to use for not exercising our right to vote. “It’s inconvenient”, “I don’t have time” and or “My vote won’t really make a difference anyway.” Bulls—t!
I happen to prefer another alternative. I prefer to be part of the solution instead of continuing to be a part of the problem. I choose to try to change my lifestyle in ways that significantly reduce my own contribution to global carbon emissions. One of the key benefits of this approach is that I won’t have to lie to my children and or grandchildren about the part I played in the climate change consequences they will have to adapt to.
Notice I underlined the word will. That is because even if the world stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, our lack of action to reduce these emissions over the past twenty years means that global temperatures will continue to rise for at least another decade or more. So given the fact that we are currently only trying to negotiate a climate change treaty that will reduce the rate of increase in such emissions followed by a gradual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over the next forty years, both current and future generations will experience the consequences of climate change due to global warming.
Make no mistake, coping with these consequences will also prove to be very costly to all nations, some more than others. Unfortunately it will be the poorest counties and poorest people in this world who will suffer the most severe consequences even though they have not actually contributed much to global warming. Ironically, it is those countries and people that have benefitted most from fossil fueled economic development who will suffer less severe impacts and will be able to afford to adapt to climate change.
Polar melting and rising sea levels have already led to relocations of several Eskimo villages in North America. Who do you think is paying for the costs of these relocations? The Eskimos themselves as well as American and Canadian taxpayers are paying for these relocations. But these Canadian and Alaskan natives are the lucky ones. Who do you think will pay for the relocations of millions of poor people who currently live in low-lying costal areas of Bangladesh and other Southeast Asian countries?
By doing my part to reduce my own carbon footprint I don’t have to feel guilty about the harmful consequences that others will suffer and I can be a morally legitimate participant in the debate about who should pay to mitigate these consequences. But just like those who do not vote, if I don’t do my part then I have no right to voice my opinions about who should pay and how best to adapt to the consequences of climate change.
Morality aside, there is another important reason why we should all do more as individuals to reduce our carbon emissions. While doing so may be inconvenient at times, in both the near term and in the long run it will also save us money. Money that we and our families can put to other uses and that we will also need down the road to pay for the costs of adapting to climate change if nothing else.
Next week I will discuss the role Chimerzilia must play in reducing carbon emissions.
Changing our lifestyles to avert Climate Change?
The Bigger Picture
Published on July 23rd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by asking how many of us as individual citizens in more developed countries are willing to take personal responsibility for the CO2 emissions that are a result of the lifestyles we live. I could be wrong, but thus far the evidence suggests precious few of us either have been or are willing to change our lifestyles in an effort to fix or pay for the environmental damage we are causing.
How can we blame politicians when almost half of us don’t even bother to vote? Judging by the lack of electoral success experienced by political candidates who are advocates of stronger measures to address climate change, even the roughly half of us who do vote have thus far shown little inclination to give politicians the power to do so.
Furthermore the response of most people to the idea of adding carbon taxes to the cost of the petrol, electricity and plastics, which are all derived from fossil fuels, has been decidedly negative so far. The main complaint I hear about proposals for carbon taxes is that these carbon based products already cost too much so we shouldn’t be forced to pay more for them even though we know using them is harming the global environment.
While I’m not happy about paying more for gas or electricity either, I also know that it is both selfish and irresponsible for me to continue to advocate getting a free pass for my CO2 emissions now that I know this is harmful to our global environment. It was one thing to use carbon based products to enhance our lifestyles before we knew there were negative consequences associated with using them. But it is quite another thing to continue using them without paying for the environmental costs associated with their use.
Most people are unwilling to face up to the fact that by not paying for the environmental costs associated with their continued use of fossil fuels today, their children and grandchildren will end up paying much more in the way of taxes to cope with the negative consequences of climate change in the future. How can sticking future generations with the bill for the consequences of climate change, due to our refusal to pay the costs of avoiding this, be considered anything but selfish and irresponsible?
We have already begun to experience some of the negative consequences of a warming world such as more extreme forms of weather in our lower latitudes including more intense tropical storms as well as longer lasting droughts. These more intense storms and droughts have also led to an increase in deaths caused by floods or starvation in many parts of the world. Rising sea levels have also led to increased erosion of costal areas around the world and made some tropical islands and costal areas uninhabitable. Furthermore the melting of permafrost in the northern hemisphere’s tundra areas has forced some natives of these regions to relocate their villages to more stable ground and disrupted the life cycles of native wildlife they depend on for their survival.
The reality of our current situation is that the governments of the world and their citizens as taxpayers have already begun to foot the bill for our unfettered use of fossil fuels and deforestation. After all, who do you think is paying for the costs of property damage and the household relocations caused by floods and costal erosion or the costs of crop failures caused by droughts? But the current costs of coping with climate change are only a small fraction of the costs and taxes that we and, to an even greater extent, our children will have to pay. If we expect our children to act responsibly and protect the global environment, then we must begin by examining the kind of example we’re setting.
Unfortunately what we adults have shown our children so far are that we are only willing to take relatively easy steps towards addressing the problem of global warming. Many of us do in fact turn down our thermostats and turn off the lights to conserve energy. Some of us have purchased more fuel efficient cars and or energy efficient appliances, while others have even gone so far as to install solar panels to provide for their homes or businesses electricity needs. I applaud those who have done these things, but the truth is these measures also usually pay for themselves within a matter of months or years so we have much to gain and little to lose financially by taking these steps.
Some people also like to point to various government mandates that have led a decrease in our usage of plastic bags or to an increase in the use of bio-fuels in our cars. But these steps are also relatively easy for us to implement since it merely means we pay a few cents more to bag our groceries and our car engines don’t have to be adapted to run on a blend of ethanol and conventional petrol.
But we have also recently discovered that the increased use of bio-fuels has not only resulted in increased prices for our food supplies but it has also led to an increase in CO2 emissions as well. That’s because we have cut down forests to clear land in order to raise bio-fuel crops like corn, palm oil, sugarcane or soybeans and released more CO2 into the atmosphere than we would had we left those forests alone. Yes, using food crops to produce atmosphere friendly petrol initially sounded like an easy way to help address global warming by cutting our use of conventional petrol. Unfortunately when something sounds too good to be true that is because it usually isn’t true.
The reality of the steps we have taken to address the problem of global warming is that few of them required us to change our energy wasting lifestyles. Parking the car and using public transportation is one of those lifestyle changes I’ll discuss next week.
Published on July 23rd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by asking how many of us as individual citizens in more developed countries are willing to take personal responsibility for the CO2 emissions that are a result of the lifestyles we live. I could be wrong, but thus far the evidence suggests precious few of us either have been or are willing to change our lifestyles in an effort to fix or pay for the environmental damage we are causing.
How can we blame politicians when almost half of us don’t even bother to vote? Judging by the lack of electoral success experienced by political candidates who are advocates of stronger measures to address climate change, even the roughly half of us who do vote have thus far shown little inclination to give politicians the power to do so.
Furthermore the response of most people to the idea of adding carbon taxes to the cost of the petrol, electricity and plastics, which are all derived from fossil fuels, has been decidedly negative so far. The main complaint I hear about proposals for carbon taxes is that these carbon based products already cost too much so we shouldn’t be forced to pay more for them even though we know using them is harming the global environment.
While I’m not happy about paying more for gas or electricity either, I also know that it is both selfish and irresponsible for me to continue to advocate getting a free pass for my CO2 emissions now that I know this is harmful to our global environment. It was one thing to use carbon based products to enhance our lifestyles before we knew there were negative consequences associated with using them. But it is quite another thing to continue using them without paying for the environmental costs associated with their use.
Most people are unwilling to face up to the fact that by not paying for the environmental costs associated with their continued use of fossil fuels today, their children and grandchildren will end up paying much more in the way of taxes to cope with the negative consequences of climate change in the future. How can sticking future generations with the bill for the consequences of climate change, due to our refusal to pay the costs of avoiding this, be considered anything but selfish and irresponsible?
We have already begun to experience some of the negative consequences of a warming world such as more extreme forms of weather in our lower latitudes including more intense tropical storms as well as longer lasting droughts. These more intense storms and droughts have also led to an increase in deaths caused by floods or starvation in many parts of the world. Rising sea levels have also led to increased erosion of costal areas around the world and made some tropical islands and costal areas uninhabitable. Furthermore the melting of permafrost in the northern hemisphere’s tundra areas has forced some natives of these regions to relocate their villages to more stable ground and disrupted the life cycles of native wildlife they depend on for their survival.
The reality of our current situation is that the governments of the world and their citizens as taxpayers have already begun to foot the bill for our unfettered use of fossil fuels and deforestation. After all, who do you think is paying for the costs of property damage and the household relocations caused by floods and costal erosion or the costs of crop failures caused by droughts? But the current costs of coping with climate change are only a small fraction of the costs and taxes that we and, to an even greater extent, our children will have to pay. If we expect our children to act responsibly and protect the global environment, then we must begin by examining the kind of example we’re setting.
Unfortunately what we adults have shown our children so far are that we are only willing to take relatively easy steps towards addressing the problem of global warming. Many of us do in fact turn down our thermostats and turn off the lights to conserve energy. Some of us have purchased more fuel efficient cars and or energy efficient appliances, while others have even gone so far as to install solar panels to provide for their homes or businesses electricity needs. I applaud those who have done these things, but the truth is these measures also usually pay for themselves within a matter of months or years so we have much to gain and little to lose financially by taking these steps.
Some people also like to point to various government mandates that have led a decrease in our usage of plastic bags or to an increase in the use of bio-fuels in our cars. But these steps are also relatively easy for us to implement since it merely means we pay a few cents more to bag our groceries and our car engines don’t have to be adapted to run on a blend of ethanol and conventional petrol.
But we have also recently discovered that the increased use of bio-fuels has not only resulted in increased prices for our food supplies but it has also led to an increase in CO2 emissions as well. That’s because we have cut down forests to clear land in order to raise bio-fuel crops like corn, palm oil, sugarcane or soybeans and released more CO2 into the atmosphere than we would had we left those forests alone. Yes, using food crops to produce atmosphere friendly petrol initially sounded like an easy way to help address global warming by cutting our use of conventional petrol. Unfortunately when something sounds too good to be true that is because it usually isn’t true.
The reality of the steps we have taken to address the problem of global warming is that few of them required us to change our energy wasting lifestyles. Parking the car and using public transportation is one of those lifestyle changes I’ll discuss next week.
Who do we blame for the lack of action to avert climate change?
The Bigger Picture
Published on July 16th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by asking how those of us who live in the nations of the industrialized world plan to explain to our children and grandchildren our decision to avoid addressing the problem of climate change by continuing to elect political leaders who won’t take any real action on this issue. I believe a truthful answer for most of us would be that we were simply too greedy and selfish to care. We also know our inaction will probably only lead to adverse consequences for other people instead of ourselves.
Many of us can and do blame our political leaders for failing to take more concrete steps to reduce our use of fossil fuel based energy and resources. But before you do, first ask yourself how politically active have you been supporting those politicians who favor more stringent measures to protect the global environment? Since 40% or more of us usually don’t exercise the democratic rights that we have come to take for granted in more developed countries, did you even bother to vote? Or were you too busy to take the time and make an effort to do so?
Or maybe we defend our inaction by taking a position, similar to former US President George Bush, which was that we wouldn’t agree to cut our own CO2 gas emissions until the poorer countries in the developing world also agreed to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately many citizens in the developing world don’t have the same democratic political rights that we have. Even those that do, in countries like India, must also be excused because most of them are simply trying to survive economically and feed their families by whatever means possible.
While I was disappointed that the political leaders of the developing countries, led by China and India, refused to agree to commit to specific goals for cutting their carbon emissions by 2050 at the G8 summit in Italy last week, I am sympathetic to their arguments against doing so. After all these countries are merely following the same path out of poverty that the nations of the industrialized world used. If we want them to develop economically by using cleaner forms of energy, then we must help them to do so.
Developing countries are well aware that their increased use of fossil fuels in conjunction with deforestation is only making the problem of global warming worse. In fact China has now overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases due to its reliance on coal for energy and the 3rd and 4th largest sources of CO2 gases are Indonesia and Brazil because of rampant tropical deforestation. Even so, these countries still emit only 1/3 of the CO2 gases that developed countries do on a per person basis. Why should they now be expected to retard their own economic development in order to fix the damage caused by the past and current actions of the industrialized nations that produced the bulk of the pollution that causes global warming?
While I applaud the fact that the industrialized world has finally agreed to cut its own CO2 emissions by 80% come the year 2050, their agreement at last weeks G8 summit nonetheless leaves open the question of setting realistic mid-term goals to achieve this reduction during the next decade. Small wonder then why the developing countries have thus far refused to agree to cut their own CO2 emissions so that a 50% global reduction can be achieved by 2050.
Emerging countries want to see interim goals for reducing gas emissions as well as firm commitments to provide financial and technological help from more developed counties before they will agree to their own CO2 gas reduction targets. Sure they don’t trust us, but why should they given our past history of not meeting such goals?
Setting appropriate environmental standards for reducing CO2 pollution forty years hence is all well and good, but only if those goals also include realistic benchmarks that can be used to assess our progress. Telling developing countries you will help them cut their own emissions without undue harm to their own economic development sounds good, but it’s meaningless unless it’s accompanied by firm financial and technological commitments. Otherwise these agreements are nothing more than so much “hot air”.
Regardless of how the world’s political leaders, or ourselves, may choose to justify the lack of concrete action to deal with the causes of climate change and global warming, we cannot escape the roles we play as individuals in dealing with this problem. If we don’t take the time to vote and or study the positions of political leaders so that we can vote for candidates who favor aggressive steps to deal with climate change, then we must share the blame for a lack of action to deal with the issue with our political leaders.
Even closer to home we must also accept responsibility for our own actions or inaction to address the causes of climate change. Will we take the time to educate ourselves about what we can do in our own homes and businesses to reduce our carbon emissions? Will we take the actions necessary to cut our own contributions to the problem once we are aware of what they are?
How many of us are willing to park, much less sell one of our cars and take public transportation to school or work instead? How many of us are willing to conserve energy by turning down the thermostat or turning out the lights when we leave our homes or workplaces? How many of us are willing to pay for better insulation or more energy efficient appliances? How many of us are willing to pay carbon taxes for the petrol and electricity we use as a means of offsetting the costs of fixing this global problem?
If we are honest about it, from where I sit the answer to these questions for most of us is; we aren’t willing to.
Published on July 16th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by asking how those of us who live in the nations of the industrialized world plan to explain to our children and grandchildren our decision to avoid addressing the problem of climate change by continuing to elect political leaders who won’t take any real action on this issue. I believe a truthful answer for most of us would be that we were simply too greedy and selfish to care. We also know our inaction will probably only lead to adverse consequences for other people instead of ourselves.
Many of us can and do blame our political leaders for failing to take more concrete steps to reduce our use of fossil fuel based energy and resources. But before you do, first ask yourself how politically active have you been supporting those politicians who favor more stringent measures to protect the global environment? Since 40% or more of us usually don’t exercise the democratic rights that we have come to take for granted in more developed countries, did you even bother to vote? Or were you too busy to take the time and make an effort to do so?
Or maybe we defend our inaction by taking a position, similar to former US President George Bush, which was that we wouldn’t agree to cut our own CO2 gas emissions until the poorer countries in the developing world also agreed to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately many citizens in the developing world don’t have the same democratic political rights that we have. Even those that do, in countries like India, must also be excused because most of them are simply trying to survive economically and feed their families by whatever means possible.
While I was disappointed that the political leaders of the developing countries, led by China and India, refused to agree to commit to specific goals for cutting their carbon emissions by 2050 at the G8 summit in Italy last week, I am sympathetic to their arguments against doing so. After all these countries are merely following the same path out of poverty that the nations of the industrialized world used. If we want them to develop economically by using cleaner forms of energy, then we must help them to do so.
Developing countries are well aware that their increased use of fossil fuels in conjunction with deforestation is only making the problem of global warming worse. In fact China has now overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases due to its reliance on coal for energy and the 3rd and 4th largest sources of CO2 gases are Indonesia and Brazil because of rampant tropical deforestation. Even so, these countries still emit only 1/3 of the CO2 gases that developed countries do on a per person basis. Why should they now be expected to retard their own economic development in order to fix the damage caused by the past and current actions of the industrialized nations that produced the bulk of the pollution that causes global warming?
While I applaud the fact that the industrialized world has finally agreed to cut its own CO2 emissions by 80% come the year 2050, their agreement at last weeks G8 summit nonetheless leaves open the question of setting realistic mid-term goals to achieve this reduction during the next decade. Small wonder then why the developing countries have thus far refused to agree to cut their own CO2 emissions so that a 50% global reduction can be achieved by 2050.
Emerging countries want to see interim goals for reducing gas emissions as well as firm commitments to provide financial and technological help from more developed counties before they will agree to their own CO2 gas reduction targets. Sure they don’t trust us, but why should they given our past history of not meeting such goals?
Setting appropriate environmental standards for reducing CO2 pollution forty years hence is all well and good, but only if those goals also include realistic benchmarks that can be used to assess our progress. Telling developing countries you will help them cut their own emissions without undue harm to their own economic development sounds good, but it’s meaningless unless it’s accompanied by firm financial and technological commitments. Otherwise these agreements are nothing more than so much “hot air”.
Regardless of how the world’s political leaders, or ourselves, may choose to justify the lack of concrete action to deal with the causes of climate change and global warming, we cannot escape the roles we play as individuals in dealing with this problem. If we don’t take the time to vote and or study the positions of political leaders so that we can vote for candidates who favor aggressive steps to deal with climate change, then we must share the blame for a lack of action to deal with the issue with our political leaders.
Even closer to home we must also accept responsibility for our own actions or inaction to address the causes of climate change. Will we take the time to educate ourselves about what we can do in our own homes and businesses to reduce our carbon emissions? Will we take the actions necessary to cut our own contributions to the problem once we are aware of what they are?
How many of us are willing to park, much less sell one of our cars and take public transportation to school or work instead? How many of us are willing to conserve energy by turning down the thermostat or turning out the lights when we leave our homes or workplaces? How many of us are willing to pay for better insulation or more energy efficient appliances? How many of us are willing to pay carbon taxes for the petrol and electricity we use as a means of offsetting the costs of fixing this global problem?
If we are honest about it, from where I sit the answer to these questions for most of us is; we aren’t willing to.
America's first climate Change legislation (really)
The Bigger Picture
Published on July 9th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
For the first time in US history, on Friday afternoon of 26 June 2009 the US House of Representatives finally passed a comprehensive bill dealing with climate change. So in my next series of columns I want to discuss the pros and cons of this historic piece of legislation as well as its implications for the upcoming United Nations Framework for Climate Change (UNFCC) Convention in Copenhagen this December.
But before I begin this discussion, I want to share some closing thoughts regarding last week’s column dealing with the dangers of mixing religious codes of morality with politics and law, aka moral absolutism.
I believe that inherent in all of us as human beings, is a basic sense of right and wrong. Granted there may be a few exceptions, such as those sociopaths and psychopaths who are seemingly devoid of any sense of guilt for their actions, but for the most part we know that we should treat other people in society the same way that we would wish people to treat us. Even primitive societies with no religious codes or a belief in God, have been shown to have established codes of moral conduct that govern interactions among their members. So why is it that so many “more advanced” societies around the world insist on incorporating various different religious moral codes into their laws?
I believe they do so because many religious leaders in “more advanced” societies are afraid that they will lose their positions of power and influence if their respective societies don’t reflect their particular religious values. If their own particular religious faith is dominant in the society they live in, then they seek to reinforce their positions of dominance and prominence within that society by ensuring that the laws governing it reflect their own religious moral values. Sometimes they are very subtle about how they go about doing this and at other times they are anything but subtle with their approach.
Most of the religious moral codes of right and wrong that I am familiar with emphasize a belief in God and treating others with respect. But many so-called spiritual leaders harp on their own specific religious and doctrinal differences in an effort to impress upon their followers the superiority of their own particular religious beliefs. In the process of doing this they not only convince their followers of the need to follow the rules of moral conduct that they espouse, but also to disregard laws or spiritual beliefs that conflict with their own since they are obviously “inferior” or lacking in some respect.
While I believe in God and am a practicing Catholic, I also happen to believe that God gave us brains and the ability to think for ourselves for a reason. My experiences in life have been such that I simply don’t believe in moral absolutes. While I find the notion of abortion personally abhorrent, I cannot know what is like to be a woman faced with the reality of giving birth to a child under difficult circumstances.
If I was a teenage girl who had been raped by my father would I still think it was wrong to get an abortion? If I was a young woman in Darfur who had been raped by members of the Janjaweed would it be wrong for me to get an abortion instead of facing a life of ostracism from my own people and an uncertain future filled with pain and suffering for that child because of something beyond my control?
In a similar vein while lying and stealing are universally considered to be morally wrong, is this always true regardless of the circumstances? If I knew that telling the truth would result in great emotional pain or suffering for another person would I be wrong to lie? If I was desperate to feed my family would I be wrong to steal a loaf of bread, a ration of rice or some milk if this was my only choice?
During the course of our lives most of us will confront some tough moral questions from time to time. Maybe we will make the right decisions sometimes and the wrong decisions at others. But in the end we will also have to live with the consequences of those decisions, be they right or wrong. I have no problem with those who use a particular set of religious or moral codes to guide them in addressing these tough questions so long as they don’t judge me or others as wrong when we disagree with them.
This issue of one’s religious and or moral conduct also provides me with a nice segue into the topic I will be discussing in this and future columns; climate change due to man made global warming.
While there are still some politicians and segments of the population who question whether or not climate change is actually occurring and if so is it really due to man made causes, there is now a large body of scientific evidence that points to the fact that man made global warming is a reality we must come to grips with. I therefore think it is exceedingly irresponsible for nay saying politicians and their supporters to continue to resist changing our lifestyles to address this concern until there is incontrovertible proof. It has been people like this who have heretofore prevented the world’s biggest energy waster, the United States, from taking concrete steps to address global warming.
But the bigger problem I have is with the general population of the US and the rest of the world that doesn’t dispute the evidence that industrial and economic development fueled by energy from the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change and harm to the global environment. What do they plan to tell their children and grandchildren who will inherit a world that has been changed for the worse? That they were more concerned about preserving their own energy intensive lifestyles than trying to address this problem earlier on?
Published on July 9th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
For the first time in US history, on Friday afternoon of 26 June 2009 the US House of Representatives finally passed a comprehensive bill dealing with climate change. So in my next series of columns I want to discuss the pros and cons of this historic piece of legislation as well as its implications for the upcoming United Nations Framework for Climate Change (UNFCC) Convention in Copenhagen this December.
But before I begin this discussion, I want to share some closing thoughts regarding last week’s column dealing with the dangers of mixing religious codes of morality with politics and law, aka moral absolutism.
I believe that inherent in all of us as human beings, is a basic sense of right and wrong. Granted there may be a few exceptions, such as those sociopaths and psychopaths who are seemingly devoid of any sense of guilt for their actions, but for the most part we know that we should treat other people in society the same way that we would wish people to treat us. Even primitive societies with no religious codes or a belief in God, have been shown to have established codes of moral conduct that govern interactions among their members. So why is it that so many “more advanced” societies around the world insist on incorporating various different religious moral codes into their laws?
I believe they do so because many religious leaders in “more advanced” societies are afraid that they will lose their positions of power and influence if their respective societies don’t reflect their particular religious values. If their own particular religious faith is dominant in the society they live in, then they seek to reinforce their positions of dominance and prominence within that society by ensuring that the laws governing it reflect their own religious moral values. Sometimes they are very subtle about how they go about doing this and at other times they are anything but subtle with their approach.
Most of the religious moral codes of right and wrong that I am familiar with emphasize a belief in God and treating others with respect. But many so-called spiritual leaders harp on their own specific religious and doctrinal differences in an effort to impress upon their followers the superiority of their own particular religious beliefs. In the process of doing this they not only convince their followers of the need to follow the rules of moral conduct that they espouse, but also to disregard laws or spiritual beliefs that conflict with their own since they are obviously “inferior” or lacking in some respect.
While I believe in God and am a practicing Catholic, I also happen to believe that God gave us brains and the ability to think for ourselves for a reason. My experiences in life have been such that I simply don’t believe in moral absolutes. While I find the notion of abortion personally abhorrent, I cannot know what is like to be a woman faced with the reality of giving birth to a child under difficult circumstances.
If I was a teenage girl who had been raped by my father would I still think it was wrong to get an abortion? If I was a young woman in Darfur who had been raped by members of the Janjaweed would it be wrong for me to get an abortion instead of facing a life of ostracism from my own people and an uncertain future filled with pain and suffering for that child because of something beyond my control?
In a similar vein while lying and stealing are universally considered to be morally wrong, is this always true regardless of the circumstances? If I knew that telling the truth would result in great emotional pain or suffering for another person would I be wrong to lie? If I was desperate to feed my family would I be wrong to steal a loaf of bread, a ration of rice or some milk if this was my only choice?
During the course of our lives most of us will confront some tough moral questions from time to time. Maybe we will make the right decisions sometimes and the wrong decisions at others. But in the end we will also have to live with the consequences of those decisions, be they right or wrong. I have no problem with those who use a particular set of religious or moral codes to guide them in addressing these tough questions so long as they don’t judge me or others as wrong when we disagree with them.
This issue of one’s religious and or moral conduct also provides me with a nice segue into the topic I will be discussing in this and future columns; climate change due to man made global warming.
While there are still some politicians and segments of the population who question whether or not climate change is actually occurring and if so is it really due to man made causes, there is now a large body of scientific evidence that points to the fact that man made global warming is a reality we must come to grips with. I therefore think it is exceedingly irresponsible for nay saying politicians and their supporters to continue to resist changing our lifestyles to address this concern until there is incontrovertible proof. It has been people like this who have heretofore prevented the world’s biggest energy waster, the United States, from taking concrete steps to address global warming.
But the bigger problem I have is with the general population of the US and the rest of the world that doesn’t dispute the evidence that industrial and economic development fueled by energy from the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change and harm to the global environment. What do they plan to tell their children and grandchildren who will inherit a world that has been changed for the worse? That they were more concerned about preserving their own energy intensive lifestyles than trying to address this problem earlier on?
Moral absolutism is incompatible with politics
The Bigger Picture
Published on July 2nd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
After reading a number of news media stories in recent days that attempted to analyze the moral shortcomings of several prominent American Republican Presidential aspirants, I was moved to write about the folly of moral absolutism in today’s column.
Moral absolutism is a belief that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of their context or the circumstances surrounding them. Adherents of moral absolutism are by and large people who truly believe that there are certain principles which should never be violated under any circumstances. They live in a black and white world, devoid of shades of gray, where ones actions are either good or bad. It is a world of certainty where you don’t ask questions or need to understand; you only need to obey.
I have noticed that there is also a particularly strong relationship between this concept of moral absolutism and the religious moral codes of the three Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Indeed the moral principles espoused by these three separate religions are remarkably similar but therein lays the rub because being similar also means that there are some differences. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the more devout or extremist members of the Abrahamic religions tend to define themselves based on the differences between these three religious codes rather than their similarities.
While the governments of most Western and Middle Eastern countries are largely secular, their societies’ respective moral codes are based on the religious moral codes of the dominant faiths in those nations. As a result, most countries government leaders and national laws reflect the values espoused by the dominant religious faith in that country; Christianity in the West, Judaism in Israel, Islam in the Middle East, Hinduism in India.
As I see it, this mixing of moral absolutism, based on one’s own religious moral codes, with the governance of society as a whole is the crux of the problem in America’s domestic politics as well as in peaceful relations between various different nations. The Christian right in America believes that abortion is murder under all circumstances but is supportive of the use of capital punishment (state sanctioned murder), notwithstanding the fact that innocent people have sometimes been put to death as a result.
While I applaud the Catholic Church for its longstanding opposition to capital punishment, its American bishops are also noticeably more vocal about their opposition to abortion than their opposition to the continued use of the death penalty in many states. Similarly, the opposition to gay marriage by the Christian right is also a reflection of the moral absolutism espoused by many Christian leaders who regard homosexuality as morally and fundamentally wrong, even within the context of a consensual relationship. Gay marriage or the acceptance of homosexual relationships violates the religious and moral principles that society needs in order to uphold wholesome “family values.”
However, depending on your religious or familial upbringing, “family values” often means different things to different people in America. Within some religions, violence is considered absolutely wrong even in self defense, while in others religious leaders believe God wants their followers to defend America by invading other countries. But it is the sexual peccadilloes of America’s political leaders that have aroused both the fascination of the American public as well as some of the most heated disagreements between various different religious groups.
Advocates of Christian rightwing “family values” were quick to excoriate Democratic President Bill Clinton for his sexual dalliances while he was in office but notably silent when it was revealed that Clinton’s chief antagonist, Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was having an affair of his own while his wife was in the hospital and at the same time he was calling for Clinton’s impeachment.
What I find particularly ironic is the fact that most of the recent revelations about American political leaders’ adulterous, homosexual or promiscuous behavior have involved Republican politicians noted for their strong statements in support of Christian “family values.” Senator Larry Craig and Representative Mark Foley were caught making homosexual advances. House leaders, Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston have all admitted multiple adulterous liaisons similar to those most recently revealed by 2012 Republican Presidential prospects, Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford. At least in Governor Sanford’s case, he had the decency to go to Argentina instead of conducting his affair in the same city as his wife.
As regards how moral absolutism impinges on relations between nations, many of Israel’s political leaders like the current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, also believe in the moral absolute of a Jewish state that all followers of Judaism are entitled to live in. Jerusalem and the West Bank are part of their “God given” Jewish homeland, which is the reason they give to justify the expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Netanyahu and others like him believe that there would never have been a Holocaust had such a Jewish state existed prior to World War II. That is also why Netanyahu has said that “any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.”
The legitimate grievances of Palestinians who have seen their own homelands expropriated in the name of the expansion and security of the Jewish state, have in turn been hijacked by pseudo-religious Islamic political terrorists like al Qaeda who don’t really care about the Palestinian people; they want to rule the entire world. Other pseudo-religious Islamic political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, backed by an authoritarian Islamic theocracy in Iran, say they believe in democracy but in fact hew to the same moral absolutism beliefs and decidedly undemocratic governance of Islamic societies espoused by Ayatollah Khomeini and the powers that be in Iran.
Politics is about making compromises. You give and take in order to address some of the interests of all parties involved. So long as we continue to support political leaders who espouse moral absolutism the problems that currently bedevil us will never get resolved.
Published on July 2nd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
After reading a number of news media stories in recent days that attempted to analyze the moral shortcomings of several prominent American Republican Presidential aspirants, I was moved to write about the folly of moral absolutism in today’s column.
Moral absolutism is a belief that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of their context or the circumstances surrounding them. Adherents of moral absolutism are by and large people who truly believe that there are certain principles which should never be violated under any circumstances. They live in a black and white world, devoid of shades of gray, where ones actions are either good or bad. It is a world of certainty where you don’t ask questions or need to understand; you only need to obey.
I have noticed that there is also a particularly strong relationship between this concept of moral absolutism and the religious moral codes of the three Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Indeed the moral principles espoused by these three separate religions are remarkably similar but therein lays the rub because being similar also means that there are some differences. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the more devout or extremist members of the Abrahamic religions tend to define themselves based on the differences between these three religious codes rather than their similarities.
While the governments of most Western and Middle Eastern countries are largely secular, their societies’ respective moral codes are based on the religious moral codes of the dominant faiths in those nations. As a result, most countries government leaders and national laws reflect the values espoused by the dominant religious faith in that country; Christianity in the West, Judaism in Israel, Islam in the Middle East, Hinduism in India.
As I see it, this mixing of moral absolutism, based on one’s own religious moral codes, with the governance of society as a whole is the crux of the problem in America’s domestic politics as well as in peaceful relations between various different nations. The Christian right in America believes that abortion is murder under all circumstances but is supportive of the use of capital punishment (state sanctioned murder), notwithstanding the fact that innocent people have sometimes been put to death as a result.
While I applaud the Catholic Church for its longstanding opposition to capital punishment, its American bishops are also noticeably more vocal about their opposition to abortion than their opposition to the continued use of the death penalty in many states. Similarly, the opposition to gay marriage by the Christian right is also a reflection of the moral absolutism espoused by many Christian leaders who regard homosexuality as morally and fundamentally wrong, even within the context of a consensual relationship. Gay marriage or the acceptance of homosexual relationships violates the religious and moral principles that society needs in order to uphold wholesome “family values.”
However, depending on your religious or familial upbringing, “family values” often means different things to different people in America. Within some religions, violence is considered absolutely wrong even in self defense, while in others religious leaders believe God wants their followers to defend America by invading other countries. But it is the sexual peccadilloes of America’s political leaders that have aroused both the fascination of the American public as well as some of the most heated disagreements between various different religious groups.
Advocates of Christian rightwing “family values” were quick to excoriate Democratic President Bill Clinton for his sexual dalliances while he was in office but notably silent when it was revealed that Clinton’s chief antagonist, Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was having an affair of his own while his wife was in the hospital and at the same time he was calling for Clinton’s impeachment.
What I find particularly ironic is the fact that most of the recent revelations about American political leaders’ adulterous, homosexual or promiscuous behavior have involved Republican politicians noted for their strong statements in support of Christian “family values.” Senator Larry Craig and Representative Mark Foley were caught making homosexual advances. House leaders, Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston have all admitted multiple adulterous liaisons similar to those most recently revealed by 2012 Republican Presidential prospects, Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford. At least in Governor Sanford’s case, he had the decency to go to Argentina instead of conducting his affair in the same city as his wife.
As regards how moral absolutism impinges on relations between nations, many of Israel’s political leaders like the current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, also believe in the moral absolute of a Jewish state that all followers of Judaism are entitled to live in. Jerusalem and the West Bank are part of their “God given” Jewish homeland, which is the reason they give to justify the expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Netanyahu and others like him believe that there would never have been a Holocaust had such a Jewish state existed prior to World War II. That is also why Netanyahu has said that “any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.”
The legitimate grievances of Palestinians who have seen their own homelands expropriated in the name of the expansion and security of the Jewish state, have in turn been hijacked by pseudo-religious Islamic political terrorists like al Qaeda who don’t really care about the Palestinian people; they want to rule the entire world. Other pseudo-religious Islamic political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, backed by an authoritarian Islamic theocracy in Iran, say they believe in democracy but in fact hew to the same moral absolutism beliefs and decidedly undemocratic governance of Islamic societies espoused by Ayatollah Khomeini and the powers that be in Iran.
Politics is about making compromises. You give and take in order to address some of the interests of all parties involved. So long as we continue to support political leaders who espouse moral absolutism the problems that currently bedevil us will never get resolved.
The worlds biggest security concern in the nest decade
The Bigger Picture
Published on June 25th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by saying that “I think erasing these huge deficits (in order to extricate our national economies from the current recession) will become the biggest political issue of the coming decade in the US and Europe. But that doesn’t mean I believe grappling with these government budget deficits will be the biggest political issue of the coming decade for the rest of the world. As regards the world, which of course also includes the US and Europe, I believe the biggest political issue of the coming decade will be halting the proliferation of nuclear weapon technology.
Although I happen to believe that climate change due to man-made global warming poses the greatest long-term threat to our planet, I think nuclear proliferation poses a much more serious and imminent threat to our planet in the near term. But given the fact that no country has used a nuclear weapon to attack or defend itself in more than sixty years, I’m afraid that far too few people around the world share this concern. In fact, when I first broached this issue in a discussion with some of my friends about the greatest threats to peace and security in the world, almost all of them dismissed the idea.
Granted the vast majority of people living today have all grown up in a world where the threats of a nuclear war between ideological enemies like the US and Russia was always a distinct possibility. But all the nations that developed and possessed nuclear weapons, regardless of their political ideologies, were also keenly aware that using such weapons to attack or defend themselves would also likely lead to their own destruction.
What has changed in the world since the Cold War days of “mutually assured destruction” is the very real possibility that nuclear weapons could soon be used by countries or individuals to advance their pseudo-religious political beliefs.
The reality of this new nuclear threat is that religious extremists, regardless of their particular religious faith, are unlikely to rationally consider the consequences of using nuclear weapons. Such religious zealots believe that if they and or millions of their fellow citizens were to die as the result of a nuclear holocaust they initiated, then that is simply the price that must be paid to cleanse the world of those who don’t agree with their own particular religious beliefs. They truly believe that they will die honorable deaths as martyrs just like the suicide bombers in Sri Lanka, Iraq and Afghanistan have.
I’m not just pointing a finger at Islam here because suicide attacks are not just a feature of Islamic inspired pseudo-religious terrorism. The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka were primarily Hindus who built the concept of martyrdom around a secular idea of individuals altruistically sacrificing for the good of the local community. The leaders of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas borrowed this same secular concept and then added the trappings of the Islamic faith to it so that they could more easily recruit weak minded individuals to carry out their suicide terrorist attacks. In fact Taliban and al Qaeda suicide bombers have actually killed far more Muslims than westerners or other non-believers.
There are also pseudo-religious extremist Christians in the US and Hindus in India who I have no doubt would be just as willing to use nuclear weapons to advance their own agendas regardless of cost in human lives. After all, prior to 9/11 the worst bombing in US history was carried out by Christian political extremists in Oklahoma City. Hindu extremists have also attacked defenseless Sikhs, Christians and Muslims throughout India.
But until recently, nuclear weaponry and technology has been under the control of secular governments in the US, Russia and India that viewed them as a means of assuring their own security rather than as a way to advance their respective political ideologies. Even though North Korea is also run by a secular regime, my concern is not that they would ever actually attack the US or any other country, but rather that they might sell their weaponry or technology to terrorist groups like the Taliban or al Qaeda.
With respect to Pakistan, I am even more alarmed about some part of their nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands given the increase in suicide bombings and recent territorial gains made by the Taliban and their al Qaeda supporters.
Farther to the west sits Israel with a very sophisticated nuclear arsenal that is the worst kept secret in the world. My concern about Israel is not that their quasi-secular government would lose control of these nuclear weapons but that Israel might feel it needs to use them to defend against future attacks by Islamic nations. Israel came very close to using them once before during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Then of course we have Iran, a religious theocracy sitting squarely in the middle of the world’s largest powder keg of religious inspired violence. Despite Iran’s repeated denials of nuclear weapons ambitions, a recent slip of the tongue by Iran’s ambassador, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, is telling. Soltanieh told reporters outside an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna that; “There is no difference between any factions or groups of the Iranian nation on the inalienable right of nuclear weapons.”
This is the reason why the Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, states that; “(Iran) wants to send a message to its neighbors; it wants to send a message to the rest of the world: yes, don't mess with us, we can have nuclear weapons if we want it.” So what is there to prevent an Islamic religious theocracy with the means and the political will to subvert the recent democratic Presidential elections in Iran and the will of its own people from acquiring nuclear weapons?
I’m afraid that if we don’t find a more effective way to deal with this issue of nuclear proliferation, the answer will be a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran by Israel.
Published on June 25th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by saying that “I think erasing these huge deficits (in order to extricate our national economies from the current recession) will become the biggest political issue of the coming decade in the US and Europe. But that doesn’t mean I believe grappling with these government budget deficits will be the biggest political issue of the coming decade for the rest of the world. As regards the world, which of course also includes the US and Europe, I believe the biggest political issue of the coming decade will be halting the proliferation of nuclear weapon technology.
Although I happen to believe that climate change due to man-made global warming poses the greatest long-term threat to our planet, I think nuclear proliferation poses a much more serious and imminent threat to our planet in the near term. But given the fact that no country has used a nuclear weapon to attack or defend itself in more than sixty years, I’m afraid that far too few people around the world share this concern. In fact, when I first broached this issue in a discussion with some of my friends about the greatest threats to peace and security in the world, almost all of them dismissed the idea.
Granted the vast majority of people living today have all grown up in a world where the threats of a nuclear war between ideological enemies like the US and Russia was always a distinct possibility. But all the nations that developed and possessed nuclear weapons, regardless of their political ideologies, were also keenly aware that using such weapons to attack or defend themselves would also likely lead to their own destruction.
What has changed in the world since the Cold War days of “mutually assured destruction” is the very real possibility that nuclear weapons could soon be used by countries or individuals to advance their pseudo-religious political beliefs.
The reality of this new nuclear threat is that religious extremists, regardless of their particular religious faith, are unlikely to rationally consider the consequences of using nuclear weapons. Such religious zealots believe that if they and or millions of their fellow citizens were to die as the result of a nuclear holocaust they initiated, then that is simply the price that must be paid to cleanse the world of those who don’t agree with their own particular religious beliefs. They truly believe that they will die honorable deaths as martyrs just like the suicide bombers in Sri Lanka, Iraq and Afghanistan have.
I’m not just pointing a finger at Islam here because suicide attacks are not just a feature of Islamic inspired pseudo-religious terrorism. The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka were primarily Hindus who built the concept of martyrdom around a secular idea of individuals altruistically sacrificing for the good of the local community. The leaders of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas borrowed this same secular concept and then added the trappings of the Islamic faith to it so that they could more easily recruit weak minded individuals to carry out their suicide terrorist attacks. In fact Taliban and al Qaeda suicide bombers have actually killed far more Muslims than westerners or other non-believers.
There are also pseudo-religious extremist Christians in the US and Hindus in India who I have no doubt would be just as willing to use nuclear weapons to advance their own agendas regardless of cost in human lives. After all, prior to 9/11 the worst bombing in US history was carried out by Christian political extremists in Oklahoma City. Hindu extremists have also attacked defenseless Sikhs, Christians and Muslims throughout India.
But until recently, nuclear weaponry and technology has been under the control of secular governments in the US, Russia and India that viewed them as a means of assuring their own security rather than as a way to advance their respective political ideologies. Even though North Korea is also run by a secular regime, my concern is not that they would ever actually attack the US or any other country, but rather that they might sell their weaponry or technology to terrorist groups like the Taliban or al Qaeda.
With respect to Pakistan, I am even more alarmed about some part of their nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands given the increase in suicide bombings and recent territorial gains made by the Taliban and their al Qaeda supporters.
Farther to the west sits Israel with a very sophisticated nuclear arsenal that is the worst kept secret in the world. My concern about Israel is not that their quasi-secular government would lose control of these nuclear weapons but that Israel might feel it needs to use them to defend against future attacks by Islamic nations. Israel came very close to using them once before during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Then of course we have Iran, a religious theocracy sitting squarely in the middle of the world’s largest powder keg of religious inspired violence. Despite Iran’s repeated denials of nuclear weapons ambitions, a recent slip of the tongue by Iran’s ambassador, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, is telling. Soltanieh told reporters outside an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna that; “There is no difference between any factions or groups of the Iranian nation on the inalienable right of nuclear weapons.”
This is the reason why the Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, states that; “(Iran) wants to send a message to its neighbors; it wants to send a message to the rest of the world: yes, don't mess with us, we can have nuclear weapons if we want it.” So what is there to prevent an Islamic religious theocracy with the means and the political will to subvert the recent democratic Presidential elections in Iran and the will of its own people from acquiring nuclear weapons?
I’m afraid that if we don’t find a more effective way to deal with this issue of nuclear proliferation, the answer will be a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran by Israel.
The next decade's biggest political issue
The Bigger Picture
Published on June 18th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
A few weeks ago I expressed a belief shared by other Americans that the worst of the global financial meltdown was now behind us, even though I still think America’s rates of unemployment and home foreclosures will continue to rise in the coming months. So today I want to conduct a post-mortem on this economic crisis by discussing both its origins and the dangers that still lie ahead for America, Ireland and the rest of the world.
Based on most news media reports, many people want to blame either greedy US bankers, risky sub-prime mortgage lending practices, a lack of government regulations or some combination of these three for precipitating the current global recession. But I view these as symptoms rather than the real causes of this unprecedented economic meltdown. The United States rightly deserves much of the blame though because the real roots of the problem do lie both with American business institutions and with American consumers.
You might also recall that when the current financial mess first began to unfold in the states, most European and Asian business and government leaders expressed a cocky confidence that their respective economies had “outgrown” their reliance on America as the world’s economic engine. “These are America’s problems; not the EU’s.” But as we have now seen, various EU officials’ once optimistic economic prognostications have since proven to be wildly off the mark. Like it or not, as the world’s largest economy, when America catches a cold, the rest of the world still sneezes.
As for the “real” root causes of the current global economic downturn, instead of railing against greedy bankers people need to take a look a bit closer to home. Much like successful “con artists”, those greedy bankers’ financial success was also based on their ability to take advantage of equally greedy consumers. That’s right; we need to begin by pointing the finger at ourselves before we start pointing it at others.
American consumers started and sustained the global economic boom of the past twenty five years by living beyond their means instead of within them. Personal savings by the average American consumer dropped from 11.2% in 1983 to its lowest point in our nation’s history at 0.4% in 2005. Since America was also producing less and less of the goods it was consuming that meant lots of jobs and export led economic growth for countries in Europe and Asia. Unfortunately though, when someone lives beyond their means they will eventually face a day of reckoning when those bills come due. In the United States that day has now arrived and the rising tide of unemployment and home mortgage foreclosures is the unpleasant consequence of years of economic profligacy.
Nor was the American consumer alone in this regard. While there has been much attention paid to sub-prime mortgage lending by banks to American consumers who had neither the financial resources nor the business acumen needed to become a home owner, that is only one part of the problem. Another less publicized part is that many credit worthy homeowners in America, Ireland, the UK and the rest of Europe bought bigger and more lavish homes than they could actually afford. Some others also bought second homes and investment properties thinking they could profit from the real estate boom.
In America and many other countries, including Ireland, it is mortgage loans on these homes and loans to the real estate developers who catered to these more credit savvy consumers that are now going into default. Sure it was way too easy to get credit to take these kinds of real estate gambles but let’s be honest here; no one pointed a gun at their heads and made them take these kinds of monetary risks. No, these consumers and real estate developers did so because they were every bit as greedy as those bankers they now want to see hung by their thumbs. So don’t pin the blame on sub-prime mortgages.
As for a lack of financial regulation the real cause in America wasn’t so much a lack of it, rather it was the ability of financial institutions to shop around and choose who they wanted as their regulator. The worlds largest insure AIG, as well as the two largest bank failures in the US, Indy Mac and Washington Mutual, all chose to be regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, which has now admitted it failed to do its job, instead of agencies like the FDIC that had a reputation for more stringent regulatory oversight.
But the real culprit behind all the easy credit available in the US and Europe was the three major global bond rating companies, Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch. When AIG and other financial institutions put together those “securities packages” that included sub-prime mortgages and credit card accounts, they rated them as AA or AAA investment grade bonds when they were anything but “safe” investments. Banks in the US, Ireland, the rest of Europe and around the world then bought these bonds and made ever more risky loans because they thought these bonds were safe and solid assets. Not!
While I’m in agreement that the worlds’ governments had to step in and clean up this financial mess, the dangers I see ahead of us are that President Obama and other government leaders don’t yet have any realistic plans for spending within their means and eliminating the huge budget deficits they are running up.
In America, 7 percent of the estimated $1.2 trillion annual deficit for the next 4 years comes from the stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February and only 3 percent comes from the President’s health care, education and energy agenda. But 33% of those deficits are thanks to Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefit with another 20% linked to Bush’s Iraq war and Obama’s middle-income tax cuts.
I think erasing these huge deficits will become the biggest political issue of the coming decade in the US and Europe.
Published on June 18th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
A few weeks ago I expressed a belief shared by other Americans that the worst of the global financial meltdown was now behind us, even though I still think America’s rates of unemployment and home foreclosures will continue to rise in the coming months. So today I want to conduct a post-mortem on this economic crisis by discussing both its origins and the dangers that still lie ahead for America, Ireland and the rest of the world.
Based on most news media reports, many people want to blame either greedy US bankers, risky sub-prime mortgage lending practices, a lack of government regulations or some combination of these three for precipitating the current global recession. But I view these as symptoms rather than the real causes of this unprecedented economic meltdown. The United States rightly deserves much of the blame though because the real roots of the problem do lie both with American business institutions and with American consumers.
You might also recall that when the current financial mess first began to unfold in the states, most European and Asian business and government leaders expressed a cocky confidence that their respective economies had “outgrown” their reliance on America as the world’s economic engine. “These are America’s problems; not the EU’s.” But as we have now seen, various EU officials’ once optimistic economic prognostications have since proven to be wildly off the mark. Like it or not, as the world’s largest economy, when America catches a cold, the rest of the world still sneezes.
As for the “real” root causes of the current global economic downturn, instead of railing against greedy bankers people need to take a look a bit closer to home. Much like successful “con artists”, those greedy bankers’ financial success was also based on their ability to take advantage of equally greedy consumers. That’s right; we need to begin by pointing the finger at ourselves before we start pointing it at others.
American consumers started and sustained the global economic boom of the past twenty five years by living beyond their means instead of within them. Personal savings by the average American consumer dropped from 11.2% in 1983 to its lowest point in our nation’s history at 0.4% in 2005. Since America was also producing less and less of the goods it was consuming that meant lots of jobs and export led economic growth for countries in Europe and Asia. Unfortunately though, when someone lives beyond their means they will eventually face a day of reckoning when those bills come due. In the United States that day has now arrived and the rising tide of unemployment and home mortgage foreclosures is the unpleasant consequence of years of economic profligacy.
Nor was the American consumer alone in this regard. While there has been much attention paid to sub-prime mortgage lending by banks to American consumers who had neither the financial resources nor the business acumen needed to become a home owner, that is only one part of the problem. Another less publicized part is that many credit worthy homeowners in America, Ireland, the UK and the rest of Europe bought bigger and more lavish homes than they could actually afford. Some others also bought second homes and investment properties thinking they could profit from the real estate boom.
In America and many other countries, including Ireland, it is mortgage loans on these homes and loans to the real estate developers who catered to these more credit savvy consumers that are now going into default. Sure it was way too easy to get credit to take these kinds of real estate gambles but let’s be honest here; no one pointed a gun at their heads and made them take these kinds of monetary risks. No, these consumers and real estate developers did so because they were every bit as greedy as those bankers they now want to see hung by their thumbs. So don’t pin the blame on sub-prime mortgages.
As for a lack of financial regulation the real cause in America wasn’t so much a lack of it, rather it was the ability of financial institutions to shop around and choose who they wanted as their regulator. The worlds largest insure AIG, as well as the two largest bank failures in the US, Indy Mac and Washington Mutual, all chose to be regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, which has now admitted it failed to do its job, instead of agencies like the FDIC that had a reputation for more stringent regulatory oversight.
But the real culprit behind all the easy credit available in the US and Europe was the three major global bond rating companies, Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch. When AIG and other financial institutions put together those “securities packages” that included sub-prime mortgages and credit card accounts, they rated them as AA or AAA investment grade bonds when they were anything but “safe” investments. Banks in the US, Ireland, the rest of Europe and around the world then bought these bonds and made ever more risky loans because they thought these bonds were safe and solid assets. Not!
While I’m in agreement that the worlds’ governments had to step in and clean up this financial mess, the dangers I see ahead of us are that President Obama and other government leaders don’t yet have any realistic plans for spending within their means and eliminating the huge budget deficits they are running up.
In America, 7 percent of the estimated $1.2 trillion annual deficit for the next 4 years comes from the stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February and only 3 percent comes from the President’s health care, education and energy agenda. But 33% of those deficits are thanks to Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefit with another 20% linked to Bush’s Iraq war and Obama’s middle-income tax cuts.
I think erasing these huge deficits will become the biggest political issue of the coming decade in the US and Europe.
The state of religion in America
The Bigger Picture
Published on June 11th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
For this final column written during my most recent sojourn in America, I want to share some thoughts I have about the current “state of religion”, and more particularly the state of the Catholic Church, in the Americas.
To begin with, even though church attendance is also on the decline in the United States just as it is in Ireland and most other developed countries in Europe; I was nonetheless amazed at the number of large new churches that had been built in cities like Dallas and Atlanta during the past three years. But only a couple of these new churches were associated with the mainstream American Catholic and Protestant denominations that are reporting declines in their numbers. Rather, the vast majority of these new places of worship were built to serve the needs of non-denominational church congregations.
Given the explosive growth these relatively new non-denominational ministries have experienced, I am now more inclined to believe that overall church attendance in America hasn’t actually declined; rather it has shifted in favour of churches that lack the bureaucracy and hierarchy which characterizes the older mainstream religions. Members of these new non-denomination congregations consider themselves to be themselves Christians instead of Baptists, Presbyterians or Catholics. Instead of promoting their own version of religious doctrines like mainstream religions do, these new churches’ ministers focus on a single core religious doctrine; a belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God.
As a result, the social values and moral philosophies espoused by the ministers who lead these new religious congregations and their racial makeup can vary widely. A number of these congregations are predominately white but there are also many others that are predominately black or are very ethnically and racially diverse. Some of them are stridently anti-abortion and anti-gay rights while others strongly support the concepts of gay marriage and a woman’s right to reproductive choice. But no matter what their particular moral beliefs may be, what these new Christian non-denominational churches also have in common is the fact that their membership is growing, not declining.
In my discussions with members of these “new” Christian churches the reasons they cited for leaving the Baptist, Catholic or Episcopal Churches they had once been members of were strikingly similar. Most of them said they had gravitated to their new congregations because of their mainstream religious leaders’ insistence that in order to be a “good” member of those denominations one must believe in and adhere to all of that particular denomination’s religious doctrines. Because they didn’t necessarily agree with all of those religious doctrines, they said they also didn’t feel as spiritually connected to God as they now feel as members of these less doctrinaire non-denominational churches.
I could readily identify with many of the sentiments expressed by these non-denominational church goers because within my own family only I and one of my brothers are still practicing Catholics. Even though our other five siblings also attended Catholic schools and were raised by my parents to be “good” Catholics, all of them now worship regularly at one of these new non-denominational churches. Frankly speaking, I don’t blame them because I also take issue with many of the actions and moral positions taken by some members of the Catholic Church’s hierarchy.
A case in point would be the Catholic hierarchy’s insistence that only men can be ordained as priests and that those priests must also take a vow of celibacy. The Catholic Church hierarchy’s rigid insistence that this is “God’s will” conveniently ignores the fact that the New Testament implies that women presided at Eucharistic meals in the early church and that St. Peter and the disciples were married and fathered numerous children.
The fact that the Council of Laodecia in 352 AD said that women could no longer be ordained as priests tells me that women were ordained as priests in the early years of the Church. The fact that it wasn’t until 1054 AD that Pope Gregory VII said for anyone to be ordained they must pledge celibacy, tells me many priests were also married men. I contend that the Catholic Church’s rigidity on the subject of ordaining only celibate men as priests is also what led many members of the Catholic Church hierarchy to ignore and or cover-up sexual abuses perpetrated by the many pedophiles attracted to the priesthood.
But the truth is the Catholic Church has allowed married priests ever since 1980, when Pope John Paul II created an exception for Protestant priests seeking to convert. The church also looks the other way or imposes only mild punishments for priests who violate their vows of celibacy so it can retain as many priests as possible. Married or less than celibate priests are also quite common in developing nations in Africa and Latin America. In fact the current President of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, fathered three children by three different women while he was the Bishop of the Diocese of San Pedro.
I have come to the conclusion that it is this kind of hypocrisy on the part of mainstream Catholic and Protestant Church leaders that has been the single biggest factor responsible for the decline in Church attendance in America and Europe. What is different however is that unlike their counterparts in Ireland and Europe, in America disenchanted Catholics and Protestants have not stopped going to church. They have instead sought out different spiritual leaders and new places of worship which focus on spirituality instead of protecting outdated church rules and traditions. These non-denominational spiritual leaders don’t advise their congregations about which politicians they should vote for. Instead they ask members of their congregation to join them in helping the poor by contributing to the church’s community services efforts.
If mainstream religions here in Ireland and Europe want to become relevant again, then church leaders need to stop trying to influence government officials with pious public statements and start ministering to the poor. Young people are watching and actions speak much louder than words.
Published on June 11th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
For this final column written during my most recent sojourn in America, I want to share some thoughts I have about the current “state of religion”, and more particularly the state of the Catholic Church, in the Americas.
To begin with, even though church attendance is also on the decline in the United States just as it is in Ireland and most other developed countries in Europe; I was nonetheless amazed at the number of large new churches that had been built in cities like Dallas and Atlanta during the past three years. But only a couple of these new churches were associated with the mainstream American Catholic and Protestant denominations that are reporting declines in their numbers. Rather, the vast majority of these new places of worship were built to serve the needs of non-denominational church congregations.
Given the explosive growth these relatively new non-denominational ministries have experienced, I am now more inclined to believe that overall church attendance in America hasn’t actually declined; rather it has shifted in favour of churches that lack the bureaucracy and hierarchy which characterizes the older mainstream religions. Members of these new non-denomination congregations consider themselves to be themselves Christians instead of Baptists, Presbyterians or Catholics. Instead of promoting their own version of religious doctrines like mainstream religions do, these new churches’ ministers focus on a single core religious doctrine; a belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God.
As a result, the social values and moral philosophies espoused by the ministers who lead these new religious congregations and their racial makeup can vary widely. A number of these congregations are predominately white but there are also many others that are predominately black or are very ethnically and racially diverse. Some of them are stridently anti-abortion and anti-gay rights while others strongly support the concepts of gay marriage and a woman’s right to reproductive choice. But no matter what their particular moral beliefs may be, what these new Christian non-denominational churches also have in common is the fact that their membership is growing, not declining.
In my discussions with members of these “new” Christian churches the reasons they cited for leaving the Baptist, Catholic or Episcopal Churches they had once been members of were strikingly similar. Most of them said they had gravitated to their new congregations because of their mainstream religious leaders’ insistence that in order to be a “good” member of those denominations one must believe in and adhere to all of that particular denomination’s religious doctrines. Because they didn’t necessarily agree with all of those religious doctrines, they said they also didn’t feel as spiritually connected to God as they now feel as members of these less doctrinaire non-denominational churches.
I could readily identify with many of the sentiments expressed by these non-denominational church goers because within my own family only I and one of my brothers are still practicing Catholics. Even though our other five siblings also attended Catholic schools and were raised by my parents to be “good” Catholics, all of them now worship regularly at one of these new non-denominational churches. Frankly speaking, I don’t blame them because I also take issue with many of the actions and moral positions taken by some members of the Catholic Church’s hierarchy.
A case in point would be the Catholic hierarchy’s insistence that only men can be ordained as priests and that those priests must also take a vow of celibacy. The Catholic Church hierarchy’s rigid insistence that this is “God’s will” conveniently ignores the fact that the New Testament implies that women presided at Eucharistic meals in the early church and that St. Peter and the disciples were married and fathered numerous children.
The fact that the Council of Laodecia in 352 AD said that women could no longer be ordained as priests tells me that women were ordained as priests in the early years of the Church. The fact that it wasn’t until 1054 AD that Pope Gregory VII said for anyone to be ordained they must pledge celibacy, tells me many priests were also married men. I contend that the Catholic Church’s rigidity on the subject of ordaining only celibate men as priests is also what led many members of the Catholic Church hierarchy to ignore and or cover-up sexual abuses perpetrated by the many pedophiles attracted to the priesthood.
But the truth is the Catholic Church has allowed married priests ever since 1980, when Pope John Paul II created an exception for Protestant priests seeking to convert. The church also looks the other way or imposes only mild punishments for priests who violate their vows of celibacy so it can retain as many priests as possible. Married or less than celibate priests are also quite common in developing nations in Africa and Latin America. In fact the current President of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, fathered three children by three different women while he was the Bishop of the Diocese of San Pedro.
I have come to the conclusion that it is this kind of hypocrisy on the part of mainstream Catholic and Protestant Church leaders that has been the single biggest factor responsible for the decline in Church attendance in America and Europe. What is different however is that unlike their counterparts in Ireland and Europe, in America disenchanted Catholics and Protestants have not stopped going to church. They have instead sought out different spiritual leaders and new places of worship which focus on spirituality instead of protecting outdated church rules and traditions. These non-denominational spiritual leaders don’t advise their congregations about which politicians they should vote for. Instead they ask members of their congregation to join them in helping the poor by contributing to the church’s community services efforts.
If mainstream religions here in Ireland and Europe want to become relevant again, then church leaders need to stop trying to influence government officials with pious public statements and start ministering to the poor. Young people are watching and actions speak much louder than words.
American exceptionalism
The Bigger Picture
Published on June 4th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Since I discussed the current political climate last week, in today’s column I would like to share some more of my observations while I’m here in the states about the current “state of the American economy” as well as some thoughts about immigration.
On the economic front there has been a palpable change in the attitudes of many of my friends and family members as well as the general public since I was last here back in January. At that time most people I knew or met were genuinely scared that the United States economy was going to be in the tank for at least three more years if not longer.
Though most of my friends still had their jobs, everyone knew someone who had either lost their jobs or seen their hours and wages reduced. Within my own family, my sister-in-law was working as an administrator for a small company that was reliant on equipment sales to auto parts suppliers. She had already seen her hours and wages cut due to reduced sales and slower payments from her company’s customers so when things didn’t improve, her and the other three employees were finally let go at the end of March.
Still when I first saw her 2 weeks ago she was in a buoyant mood because she had just begun training for a new job, albeit a part-time one, as a bank teller for JP Morgan Chase, one of America’s largest remaining “solvent” banks. In truth all of America’s banks are still solvent thanks to the intervention of the US Government, but Chase was one of the few large American banks that it now turns out didn’t need any federal money. Several of my other friends who had lost their jobs were similarly optimistic regarding their own future employment prospects even though they had yet to land a new one.
The most amazing aspect of these changes in attitude about the US economy I noticed was that all of my friends acknowledged that they still expected unemployment and home foreclosures in the US to continue to rise through at least the end of this year. In fact the American economy has already shed almost 6 million jobs and seen more than one of every ten home mortgages go into foreclosure since the recession began in the fall of 2007. No one seems to expect much of a recovery in 2010 either as virtually everyone I talk to thinks the US economy won’t really start growing again until 2011.
So why on earth are so many people here in the US becoming more optimistic about America’s and their own economic futures in the face of a continuing rise in unemployment and home foreclosure rates? Well from my perspective there are two primary reasons; the first one is based on economic factors and the second is cultural.
Among other economic factors the most important one has been a renewed confidence in the American economy on the part of private investors. There is a now a belief that America’s financial institutions have finally been stabilized and the worst of the recession is now behind us. This is evidenced by the recent injections of private investor money into American banks and by the stock market’s rebound. Investors have also begun to buy foreclosed homes and distressed real estate properties in the worst hit markets like Phoenix Arizona where bidding wars for some properties have broken out.
Recent consumer confidence reports also support the more optimistic sentiments expressed by my friends and family members. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the American economy, unexpectedly rose by 2.2% during the first quarter and most US retailers are reporting that their sales are no longer falling.
From a cultural perspective, most Americans are raised with the belief that in the American system of democracy it is possible to do anything, even those things which most observers would quite practically consider impossible. Brilliance, genius and wisdom aren’t limited to those who have been raised with particular economic and educational advantages or to great universities like Harvard and MIT. These attributes can also be found just as easily in people who were raised on rural farms or in urban slums as well as in America’s egalitarian community colleges.
Mind you, I’m not saying that America is alone in this regard because such qualities can also be found in people who live in many other nations around the world. Rather, what I think makes America unique is that, unlike virtually all other countries, it is a truly a nation of immigrants. This is the ultimate source of American exceptionalism.
I believe that those individuals, who choose to leave their native lands in search of a better life in unfamiliar surroundings, possess a belief in themselves and optimism about the future that sets them apart from their other countrymen. They need such beliefs to sustain them because they also know that they will have to endure many hardships without being able to draw on the strength and comfort that one derives from familiar surroundings, family and friends. These immigrants then inculcate these same beliefs into their children and grandchildren’s psyches while they are growing up, thus passing this view of life as one being full of possibilities on to future generations of Americans.
This is the kind of American exceptionalism that both I and President Barack Obama believe in. It is America’s single greatest strength and yet it has also proven to at times be the starting place for most of America’s mistakes. In other words, America’s greatest strength can also be its greatest weakness. Some Americans on both the right and the left politically believe that American exceptionalism extends to America’s judicial and political system as well as their own moral belief systems. Therein lies the rub, because it is these perversions of American exceptionalism which lead us to dismiss the views and perspectives of people in other countries. Next week we’ll discuss America’s religions.
Published on June 4th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Since I discussed the current political climate last week, in today’s column I would like to share some more of my observations while I’m here in the states about the current “state of the American economy” as well as some thoughts about immigration.
On the economic front there has been a palpable change in the attitudes of many of my friends and family members as well as the general public since I was last here back in January. At that time most people I knew or met were genuinely scared that the United States economy was going to be in the tank for at least three more years if not longer.
Though most of my friends still had their jobs, everyone knew someone who had either lost their jobs or seen their hours and wages reduced. Within my own family, my sister-in-law was working as an administrator for a small company that was reliant on equipment sales to auto parts suppliers. She had already seen her hours and wages cut due to reduced sales and slower payments from her company’s customers so when things didn’t improve, her and the other three employees were finally let go at the end of March.
Still when I first saw her 2 weeks ago she was in a buoyant mood because she had just begun training for a new job, albeit a part-time one, as a bank teller for JP Morgan Chase, one of America’s largest remaining “solvent” banks. In truth all of America’s banks are still solvent thanks to the intervention of the US Government, but Chase was one of the few large American banks that it now turns out didn’t need any federal money. Several of my other friends who had lost their jobs were similarly optimistic regarding their own future employment prospects even though they had yet to land a new one.
The most amazing aspect of these changes in attitude about the US economy I noticed was that all of my friends acknowledged that they still expected unemployment and home foreclosures in the US to continue to rise through at least the end of this year. In fact the American economy has already shed almost 6 million jobs and seen more than one of every ten home mortgages go into foreclosure since the recession began in the fall of 2007. No one seems to expect much of a recovery in 2010 either as virtually everyone I talk to thinks the US economy won’t really start growing again until 2011.
So why on earth are so many people here in the US becoming more optimistic about America’s and their own economic futures in the face of a continuing rise in unemployment and home foreclosure rates? Well from my perspective there are two primary reasons; the first one is based on economic factors and the second is cultural.
Among other economic factors the most important one has been a renewed confidence in the American economy on the part of private investors. There is a now a belief that America’s financial institutions have finally been stabilized and the worst of the recession is now behind us. This is evidenced by the recent injections of private investor money into American banks and by the stock market’s rebound. Investors have also begun to buy foreclosed homes and distressed real estate properties in the worst hit markets like Phoenix Arizona where bidding wars for some properties have broken out.
Recent consumer confidence reports also support the more optimistic sentiments expressed by my friends and family members. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the American economy, unexpectedly rose by 2.2% during the first quarter and most US retailers are reporting that their sales are no longer falling.
From a cultural perspective, most Americans are raised with the belief that in the American system of democracy it is possible to do anything, even those things which most observers would quite practically consider impossible. Brilliance, genius and wisdom aren’t limited to those who have been raised with particular economic and educational advantages or to great universities like Harvard and MIT. These attributes can also be found just as easily in people who were raised on rural farms or in urban slums as well as in America’s egalitarian community colleges.
Mind you, I’m not saying that America is alone in this regard because such qualities can also be found in people who live in many other nations around the world. Rather, what I think makes America unique is that, unlike virtually all other countries, it is a truly a nation of immigrants. This is the ultimate source of American exceptionalism.
I believe that those individuals, who choose to leave their native lands in search of a better life in unfamiliar surroundings, possess a belief in themselves and optimism about the future that sets them apart from their other countrymen. They need such beliefs to sustain them because they also know that they will have to endure many hardships without being able to draw on the strength and comfort that one derives from familiar surroundings, family and friends. These immigrants then inculcate these same beliefs into their children and grandchildren’s psyches while they are growing up, thus passing this view of life as one being full of possibilities on to future generations of Americans.
This is the kind of American exceptionalism that both I and President Barack Obama believe in. It is America’s single greatest strength and yet it has also proven to at times be the starting place for most of America’s mistakes. In other words, America’s greatest strength can also be its greatest weakness. Some Americans on both the right and the left politically believe that American exceptionalism extends to America’s judicial and political system as well as their own moral belief systems. Therein lies the rub, because it is these perversions of American exceptionalism which lead us to dismiss the views and perspectives of people in other countries. Next week we’ll discuss America’s religions.
Republican conservatives winng the battle but losing the war
The Bigger Picture
Published on May 28th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I’m back in the states for the next couple of weeks so I would like to take this opportunity to share some of my observations about the current “state of America.”
Last week I predicted that a new Democratic majority would probably be in power for at least a generation because “America’s demographic trends reveal the numbers of urban black, Hispanic and younger, better educated white voters are growing.” Well a very large survey of more than 7000 American voters by America’s oldest and most respected polling firm, Gallup, was just released that both amplifies on and lends additional support to that argument.
To begin with, this recent Gallup Poll found that the percentage of voters who self identify themselves as Republicans had dropped to 21%, the lowest number in the past 25 years. Even more worrisome for Republicans was the fact that the same poll found that more than 53% of voters now self identify as Democrats. This, in a marked contrast with the Republicans, is easily the highest number for Democrats in a generation.
But social conservative Republicans still don’t seem to understand what has happened to the American electorate. They continue to claim that the way back to power for the Republican Party is to refuse to compromise with moderate Democrats and Republicans and instead focus on their opposition to abortion, gay marriage, gun control and increased federal spending. As such they are in alignment with Rush Limbaugh and their base of Republican voters but not with the independent and swing voters they need to win national elections. Congressional Republicans, particularly those in the House of Representatives, seem to be unaware that the ground beneath their feet has shifted.
The most telling numbers in the Gallup Poll are the ones that show Republicans losing significant support across all demographic groups except church going Christians, senior citizens and conservatives. There has been a decline in GOP support of 10 points among college graduates and 13 points among college graduates with postgraduate educations. Support has also declined by 9% among those who identify themselves as moderates; young people aged 18-29 and people making under $75,000 a year.
These are “toss-up” voter constituencies which have traditionally split their votes almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans in past elections, but are now tilting heavily Democratic. The Gallup Poll also reveals that another “big factor in the GOP's overall decline is the Democratic Party's consolidating its support among normally Democratically leaning groups” like liberals and those who don’t usually go to church.
The longer-term problem for establishment Congressional Republicans like Senator’s Richard Lugar and Lindsey Graham is that most of the Republicans that remain in the House of Representatives represent the most conservative elements of the party. They live in relatively safe election districts in conservative areas of the South and West and have very little concern for how their embrace of Rush Limbaugh’s ideological views will play to independent or moderate voters in other areas of the country.
These Republican congressmen identify far more with Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin’s rigidly conservative ideological wing of the Republican Party than they do with the more moderate and pragmatic establishment wing represented by Governors Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Conservatives effectively control what is left of the national Republican Party and they are not making any secret of their disdain for those few moderate voices that still remain.
As a result some moderate Republicans have decided to throw in the towel rather than continue to swim upstream against the ever stronger conservative current. Senator Arlen Specter is a case in point. Facing almost certain defeat in a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year at the hands of a very conservative Republican from the House of Representatives, Specter switched his political affiliation to the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh and his “ditto-head” followers responded with derisive comments to the effect that Specter wasn’t a “Real Republican” so he wouldn’t be missed.
But establishment Republican conservatives like Senators Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn begged to differ because they knew the loss of Specter’s vote also meant that Republicans would no longer be able to muster the votes in the US Senate to filibuster Democratic legislation. Senator Cornyn who also heads the Republican Senate Election Campaign Committee had previously expressed support for Senator Specter in his Republican primary battle. Cornyn knew that while Specter’s more doctrinaire and conservative Republican opponent would probably win the Republican primary against Specter, he also had no chance of winning the General Election against any Democrat, most especially if that Democrat was an incumbent Senator named Arlen Specter.
This interesting bit of political reality neatly summarizes the dilemma for the rest of the national Republican Party establishment as well. Be they moderates or conservatives, established Republican political leaders are confronted with a shrinking base of conservative voters who are more concerned with the ideological purity of Republican candidates than with winning national or state elections.
These establishment figures privately voice their concerns about the continued erosion of support for Republican candidates among independent or moderate swing voters who abhor Limbaugh’s views, but none of them will dare to stand up to Rush and his ditto-heads for fear that they will be regarded as enemies by conservative Republican base voters. They need to recruit moderate Republicans to run for state and national offices in the north and costal regions of the United States if they are to have any hope of winning in the General Election, but those candidates must first win their Republican primaries against more conservative Republican opponents.
As a result, those Republican moderates like Tom Ridge, who would have a good chance of winning a general election campaign against a Democratic opponent have instead opted not to run for office. Dark days lie ahead for the Republican Party until such time as its leaders decide to stand up against its conservative ideologues. As it stands now Republican conservatives are winning the battles but the Republican Party is losing the war.
Published on May 28th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I’m back in the states for the next couple of weeks so I would like to take this opportunity to share some of my observations about the current “state of America.”
Last week I predicted that a new Democratic majority would probably be in power for at least a generation because “America’s demographic trends reveal the numbers of urban black, Hispanic and younger, better educated white voters are growing.” Well a very large survey of more than 7000 American voters by America’s oldest and most respected polling firm, Gallup, was just released that both amplifies on and lends additional support to that argument.
To begin with, this recent Gallup Poll found that the percentage of voters who self identify themselves as Republicans had dropped to 21%, the lowest number in the past 25 years. Even more worrisome for Republicans was the fact that the same poll found that more than 53% of voters now self identify as Democrats. This, in a marked contrast with the Republicans, is easily the highest number for Democrats in a generation.
But social conservative Republicans still don’t seem to understand what has happened to the American electorate. They continue to claim that the way back to power for the Republican Party is to refuse to compromise with moderate Democrats and Republicans and instead focus on their opposition to abortion, gay marriage, gun control and increased federal spending. As such they are in alignment with Rush Limbaugh and their base of Republican voters but not with the independent and swing voters they need to win national elections. Congressional Republicans, particularly those in the House of Representatives, seem to be unaware that the ground beneath their feet has shifted.
The most telling numbers in the Gallup Poll are the ones that show Republicans losing significant support across all demographic groups except church going Christians, senior citizens and conservatives. There has been a decline in GOP support of 10 points among college graduates and 13 points among college graduates with postgraduate educations. Support has also declined by 9% among those who identify themselves as moderates; young people aged 18-29 and people making under $75,000 a year.
These are “toss-up” voter constituencies which have traditionally split their votes almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans in past elections, but are now tilting heavily Democratic. The Gallup Poll also reveals that another “big factor in the GOP's overall decline is the Democratic Party's consolidating its support among normally Democratically leaning groups” like liberals and those who don’t usually go to church.
The longer-term problem for establishment Congressional Republicans like Senator’s Richard Lugar and Lindsey Graham is that most of the Republicans that remain in the House of Representatives represent the most conservative elements of the party. They live in relatively safe election districts in conservative areas of the South and West and have very little concern for how their embrace of Rush Limbaugh’s ideological views will play to independent or moderate voters in other areas of the country.
These Republican congressmen identify far more with Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin’s rigidly conservative ideological wing of the Republican Party than they do with the more moderate and pragmatic establishment wing represented by Governors Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Conservatives effectively control what is left of the national Republican Party and they are not making any secret of their disdain for those few moderate voices that still remain.
As a result some moderate Republicans have decided to throw in the towel rather than continue to swim upstream against the ever stronger conservative current. Senator Arlen Specter is a case in point. Facing almost certain defeat in a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year at the hands of a very conservative Republican from the House of Representatives, Specter switched his political affiliation to the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh and his “ditto-head” followers responded with derisive comments to the effect that Specter wasn’t a “Real Republican” so he wouldn’t be missed.
But establishment Republican conservatives like Senators Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn begged to differ because they knew the loss of Specter’s vote also meant that Republicans would no longer be able to muster the votes in the US Senate to filibuster Democratic legislation. Senator Cornyn who also heads the Republican Senate Election Campaign Committee had previously expressed support for Senator Specter in his Republican primary battle. Cornyn knew that while Specter’s more doctrinaire and conservative Republican opponent would probably win the Republican primary against Specter, he also had no chance of winning the General Election against any Democrat, most especially if that Democrat was an incumbent Senator named Arlen Specter.
This interesting bit of political reality neatly summarizes the dilemma for the rest of the national Republican Party establishment as well. Be they moderates or conservatives, established Republican political leaders are confronted with a shrinking base of conservative voters who are more concerned with the ideological purity of Republican candidates than with winning national or state elections.
These establishment figures privately voice their concerns about the continued erosion of support for Republican candidates among independent or moderate swing voters who abhor Limbaugh’s views, but none of them will dare to stand up to Rush and his ditto-heads for fear that they will be regarded as enemies by conservative Republican base voters. They need to recruit moderate Republicans to run for state and national offices in the north and costal regions of the United States if they are to have any hope of winning in the General Election, but those candidates must first win their Republican primaries against more conservative Republican opponents.
As a result, those Republican moderates like Tom Ridge, who would have a good chance of winning a general election campaign against a Democratic opponent have instead opted not to run for office. Dark days lie ahead for the Republican Party until such time as its leaders decide to stand up against its conservative ideologues. As it stands now Republican conservatives are winning the battles but the Republican Party is losing the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
