Blog

Here is the next installment.

5. Environment and climate change.  The US EPA employs 14,000 people and has a budget of $8.5 Billion (about 0.2% of federal expenditures).  State environmental agencies have a combined total budget of $24 Billion and industry spends an unknown but possibly even larger amount on top of that.  That means about $60± Billion/yr (10% of the defense budget) is spent on the environment.  Great progress has been made on environmental improvement over the past 40 years – the US has the safest drinking water supply in the world, air quality is dramatically improved, essentially all wastewaters are treated, and rivers/lakes are widely swimmable/fishable.  Assuming we don’t backslide on local environmental quality, climate change is now the largest current threat to the environment, possibly an existential threat.  Although some weather incidents are falsely blamed on climate change, there is no question that atmospheric CO₂ levels are 30% higher than they have been in 1 Million years and that the earth’s temperature is rising.  Despite what deniers say, the only real uncertainty about climate change is what it will mean to life.  Besides agricultural/food supply changes, population disruptions are likely to be one of the more significant and hugely expensive impacts of climate change (sea level rise is currently about 5 mm/yr and increasing; about 100 Million people in the US live within coastal zones that could permanently become flooded).  If climate change is indeed responsible for more violent storms, eventually insurance will run out and chaos will reign.  Between conventional environmental issues and climate change, consider this:

• How important is clean air and clean water; is it simply aesthetic or is there more to it?
• Are environmental controls important enough to make them top business priorities and to acceptably add costs to products and services?  How far should this go (e.g., all the way to universally clean rivers and air, no matter what the cost?)
• Improved scientific understanding often results in lowering safety thresholds (e.g., lower drinking water standards), essentially meaning that environmental standards and regulations continue to become more stringent.  How far should this go?
• Climate change is clearly a global issue; should individual nations ignore this and just do their part or should their part depend on global cooperation?
• Should the US demonstrate leadership on this issue; how so; at what cost?
• One argument about climate change mitigations (e.g., giving up petroleum) is that they would be too disruptive, but climate change itself will be the ultimate disruptor.  What level and rate of mitigation disruption should we embrace?
• The two current strategies for climate change are mitigation and adaptation.  Currently, neither has progressed sufficiently.  What should be done about each; which should be emphasized?
• It is possible that environmental issues will become a reason for war, e.g., water shortages or immigration needs due to unlivable climates; how should this issue be handled?

6. Globalization and world trade.  From almost any fruit on your table available at any time, to job relocations, globalization has good and bad qualities.  The total world trade of goods and services is $42 Trillion/yr, led by the EU at 13% and closely followed by the US at 12%, China at 10%, and Germany at 8%.  The world’s largest exports are petroleum, cars, and phones totaling $2.6 Trillion.  National economies are deeply dependent on world trade for good and bad.  It cannot be ignored, and it will not go away.  The 164-member World Trade Organization (there are 195 nations in the world) sets and enforces, to some degree, world trade rules.  Consider this:

• How well is the WTO adapted to 21^st Century globalization?
• When jobs are lost to cheaper manufacturing conditions, nations complain.  Isn’t this just a modern version of competition or is it something “unfair”?
• How should health and safety issues related to cross-boundary products be regulated (e.g., lead in dishware violating a country’s lead safety standards)?
• Totally free trade or tariffs?  When are tariffs reasonable?
• One argument against globalization is that it will eventually erase cultural differences.  Is this true?  Will “erase” mean integration of cultures and not eradication?  What would eventual homogenization mean – lost sense of identity, lost cultural aggression, etc.?
• China doesn’t play fair.  For example, companies desperate for access to China’s markets get blackmailed into handing over their secrets to be allowed a presence in China. One might argue that such is simply their own business decision, but sometimes those secrets have national security impacts.  How should this be controlled?