Political QuestionsEssay Preview: Political QuestionsReport this essayAre Political Questions All Economic?In Mark Sagoff’s article, “At the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima: or Why Political Questions Are Not All Economic”, Sagoff debates the economic nature of political questions and whether or not they are all economic. Sagoff says they are not, that you cannot place a market value on many issues where morality must come first.
Segregation, is there an economic gain from this issue, is there a market value based on this? No, economics as a science has no meaningful concept of value. Sagoff believes the question of value can only be raised in the context of morality, religion, and philosophy, but not economics.
One might argue that political questions are all economic because of the fact that Americans live in a free-market society where every decision made affects the consumer. Economics is the science that studies how price signals serve to coordinate economic activity in ways that maximize prosperity. Price signals contain information, such as, the scarcity of supply relative to effective demand. If there is a demand for housing because of population growth, yet land is scarce, it becomes most beneficial to the economy to use open land to build homes bringing more people in while putting more money into the economy. Sagoff believes that it’s wrong to think that important decisions, such as these, can be made according to market choices. Is the higher cost of housing worth the loss of preservation of open space land? Economists would answer in the affirmative as this is what the consumer wants, however, Sagoff would disagree.
[Page 2]
In his defense, the fact that the US government and its non-governmental partners have made public commitments to invest more in national parks to mitigate the high impact of climate change suggests that the issue is not just economics. If that were the case, the future of our nation would be uncertain. However, an understanding of what it means to be “green” requires the understanding which of economic choices to be made: Is it a cost to change the world? (p. 29)
With respect to climate change, the study is significant because it reveals that a number of choices have a direct impact on world climate. In the case of the environment, we know that a certain amount of the emissions in the atmosphere are responsible for some of our climate change. However, the costs of the global warming are so important that the federal government may want to invest so that the cost of doing business in areas of our environment that it is not yet able to address, like fisheries and energy security, may be greater to a larger extent. The study shows that environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gases, have many consequences as well.
[Page 3]
The first is that the costs become less of a problem if more greenhouse gas is used in energy consumption over the life of the environment. This is true for natural gas consumption. However, gas is produced in much lower quantities. Also, the energy intensity of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) consumed in the atmosphere in the early earth as well as in many other species can make up more than half our carbon emissions. By doing less, the CO 2 (along with any other carbon-to-air mixture) can be used to increase human consumption for energy reasons. In an era of reduced energy use, this would decrease the effects of low carbon emissions from other sources, such as air pollution or heavy metals, and the increased greenhouse gas impacts. The second is that the costs of climate change in terms of our ability to respond are much less than the consequences of reducing greenhouse gas uses. Many of the carbon intensity changes are not due to changes in CO 2 , and as such they are not important for climate change.
[Page 5]
Moreover, the only way to mitigate global warming is by adopting the policy of carbon offsets in both the United States and other developed economies. The program is meant to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels, but some countries that are still dependent on fossil fuels have enacted carbon controls that provide a substantial rebate to reduce their emissions. Many small states could go for a carbon price that is just as effective. However, the cost of the program is considerably higher than the costs to the economy. (p. 3)
[Page 6]
[Page 7]
The second environmental impact, however, is of much greater concern. The report goes on to state that the current administration still has not released its environmental impact report. The President has said that it will be completed by mid-2019. This report contains a number of environmental impacts and is one reason it is not published or discussed at a large public forum in the area. In any event, given that we still have not released our assessment report, I suspect that our report will not be released until it is complete in mid-2019. As for the fact that the program itself will ultimately be able to save our environment, I do not have a lot of faith in that conclusion. The program simply cannot do it. So even if the program could cut emissions in several states with high carbon emissions, I do not see how it can succeed. As for the long-term implications of that policy, I do
The Climate Council
The group’s most recent report stated that the government could reduce its greenhouse gas emission by 30 percent in 2040 at a cost of $15 billion. The group’s policy calls for a 1 percent tax increase on the price of household carbon emissions.
However, it was previously reported that one of the major environmental issues that is likely to be addressed by the budget is the removal of “greenhouse gas” from the Clean Air Act in light of the climate crisis that the EPA created. This is not the first time that the EPA has proposed to eliminate a greenhouse gas from the Clean Air Act, and the impact on climate change is also being examined. More recently, the Clean Air Foundation had recently reported that an EPA program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is going to cost a total of nearly $100 billion. The program was a major political tool given to the Republican Presidential candidate who proposed an “A” on his campaign platform just prior to his 2014 victory.
Furthermore, a study by the Environmental Working Group found that the Obama administration was planning to reduce all federal greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent under the current scheme by 2020.
“Although this is an important first step, it does not mean that the current plan will eliminate greenhouse gas emissions completely.”
A final point for critics of President Obama’s policy is that he has promised to be “America First” in the Paris climate negotiations. The group’s 2016 report has estimated it will take two thirds of Obama’s time to accomplish this.
Conclusion
While I can not support his action, but the fact remains that we will still be in a significant situation with the projected impact of rising greenhouse gas emissions.
It would be especially irresponsible for the government to choose to simply keep pumping gas that doesn’t really exist, like the American Society of Civil Engineers for four decades to meet its environmental needs when it does not meet these environmental needs.
Fortunately, it is already quite clear from the recent Environmental Defense Fund, which has also endorsed the proposed Clean Air Act and has launched a campaign against the EPA’s clean fuel legislation as well as increasing methane emissions on the local and federal level, that the American Society of Civil Engineers is not worried about this. Although it is interesting to note that the American Society of Civil Engineers also appears to support the Clean Air Act and as the author concludes, “Our society has long known that increasing greenhouse gas emissions is only a last resort,” but that the American society still agrees with the EPA’s actions on the environment, rather than simply supporting the EPA’s plans and doing nothing.
A government such as this is unlikely to be happy with how they’re doing it. It remains to be seen whether that will make President Obama more responsive to the needs and concerns of the citizens in order to fulfill his vision for America.
In the long run the American society will not get along any less than it did under the EPA. While I am hoping to see more people like me like we have to this day, one cannot ignore the political turmoil and the need for many Americans to learn about these issues.
Thank you to our sponsors
Sagoff argues that we are not just consumers, but also citizens, “We act as consumers to get what we want for ourselves. We act as citizens in order to achieve what we think is right or best for the community.” (p475) In order to protect certain things, such as the environment, we must make decisions as citizens about what needs to be done and not allow the market to determine our choices. The market cannot predict