.For a Fairer Working America

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, President Barack Obama, in his State Of The Union Address, introduced a proposal to increase the national minimum wage and tie it to the cost of living ("Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address"). Since then, a bill, cosigned by one hundred thirty–nine members of congress, has been formally introduced known as the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. If passed, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 would increase the current federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr. to $10.10/hr. over the next two years ("Summary: S.460 [113th]"). Subsequent increases would be based on the annual cost of living index as determined by the United States Secretary of Labor ("Summary: S.460 [113th]"). The act would provide a raise for around thirty million American workers, but has been criticized for being potentially detrimental to the economy (Morton). Regardless of any opposing view, there is no denying the fact that those working on the federal minimum wage, especially those with families, are facing undue financial hardship. All in all, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 should be enacted because of its potential to help millions of Americans make ends meet and improve their standard of living.

In the United States, we as citizens like to think that anyone, no matter where or how they were brought up, can do anything with enough hard work and determination. This ideal, coined the “American Dream,” has always been part of our culture, but has not always been reality for every American. Most would strongly agree that every United States citizen should have an equal opportunity to achieve this dream. It is guaranteed in the constitution, after all, that all citizens be treated equally and would thus have an equal opportunity to succeed. However, we are finding today, that federal laws do not necessarily facilitate that idea. The current federal minimum wage is one such federal law that is not providing an opportunity for low wage workers to grow and achieve the “American Dream.”

Due to inflation, the federal minimum wage, over the last forty–five years, has been dropping in value. In 1968, the minimum wage was $1.60/hr. (United States). When corrected for inflation, however, its actual value, or buying power, was equivalent to $10.70/hr., thirty percent higher than the current value (“Facts”). This decrease means that despite working the same amount of time, low wage workers are actually making less money than they used to. This pattern, of the deflating minimum wage, has been on a downward trend since 1968 and is proving to be problematic for low wage workers. In 1960 for example, a gallon of gasoline cost $0.31 (Konen). Translated into the amount of time someone would need to work at the minimum wage, it would be nineteen minutes. Today, according the American Automobile Association, the average price of gasoline is $3.52 per gallon (Green). With the minimum wage of $7.25/hr., a worker would need to work thirty minutes, almost double the amount as he or she would have in 1968. People have to work more to purchase the same amount of goods. This change is posing serious problems for those who rely on the minimum wage.

Gasoline is one of the many costs of everyday items taken into account when the Secretary of Labor calculates the cost of living index, or consumer price index. The purpose of the index is to determine, and in part measure, the general cost of goods to the average consumer. It is closely tied to the poverty line, which is the point by which people are unable, financially, to purchase goods and services considered as usual commodities for the average American ("2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines"). The value of the cost of living index depends on the location in the country, but has been consistently increasing over the years due to inflation. Some goods like gasoline, electricity, and various food products have increased in price abnormally quick in the last decade (Johnson). The increasing cost of living is pushing the poverty line up, and is engulfing millions of American families. Living on low wages is becoming increasingly difficult with the rising prices of goods and services nationwide. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 would solve this issue as it would, for the first time since 1938, tie the minimum wage to the cost of living. If the minimum wage remains untied to the cost of living, American families relying on income at minimum wage level will continue to fall into and remain in poverty.

In the words of President Barack Obama, “in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty” ("Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address"). This situation, however, is the reality under the current federal minimum wage.  Figure one depicts the poverty line in relationship with the decreasing value of the minimum wage.

Figure 1: A graph showing the real value of the minimum wage when compared to two levels of the poverty line (Hall).

Today, the federal minimum wage pays around $15,000 a year with full time employment (Morton). For a household of two living in the forty–eight contiguous states, that annual pay amounts to just slightly below the poverty line of $15,825 (Hall). If that couple had one child they would be nearly $4,000 below. The minimum wage is simply not providing enough income for families to escape poverty. This is part of the epidemic of “persistent poverty,” in which people supporting families are unable, despite working full forty hour weeks, to rise above the poverty line. The federal minimum wage is simply not providing enough income for people to have an equal opportunity to succeed and increase their standard of living.

On a similar note, housing has become nearly impossible to attain for a minimum wage worker. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is no state in the United States where someone making $7.25/hr., at forty hours a week, can afford a two bedroom apartment (Bravve). To come to this conclusion the, National Low Income Housing Coalition looked at the fair market rent in every state. They concluded that the rent was simply unattainable without spending more than thirty percent of one’s income (Bravve).  Some states which have the highest cost of living in the country, like California, Hawaii, and New York, require an excess of one hundred twenty hours of work to be able to afford a two bedroom apartment (Bravve). This is not only bordering impossible, but can be very problematic for single parents, who already struggle to find time to watch over children. Today in the United States of America, home of the “American Dream,” owning a house or much less renting is a remote possibility for anyone living on minimum wage. The problems with the current system only continue.

When the times are considered, it is all the more important that the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 be passed to protect those who lose their jobs. According to Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, “america’s middle-class jobs have been decimated since 2007, replaced largely by low-wage jobs” (Plumer). Millions of jobs were lost in the recession, many of which paid well and provided for a comfortable living. With little other options, laid off middle class workers have become a large part of the minimum wage workforce. Occupations making less than thirteen dollars per hour have increased fifty–eight percent since the beginning of the recession (Plumer). It is all the more important to protect this increasing population of workers. John Warren, a porter at Stop and Shop, was one middle class worker affected by the economic downturn. After working at a book publishing company for twenty–five years, and making $30/hr., he was laid off and forced to find another job. It did not take long for him to realize that the only jobs available were low wage jobs (Warren). Over the last year, he has been struggling to pay a mortgage and support a family on the minimum wage (Warren). People like John face losing everything they have worked for due to an inadequate minimum wage. The current minimum wage does not provide enough income to sustain a home or a family living at even a middle class lifestyle. The minimum wage should, at least, provide enough income for someone to wait out a time to find a better job. It is simply not right that a life’s worth of hard work be lost to an unfortunate job loss. However, layoffs are not the only injustices dealt with by low wage workers.

As mentioned before, the minimum wage has lost value significantly since the 1960s. This loss is not only the cause of poverty and inadequate housing, but also of the increasing problem of income equality. Low wage workers simply do not have the same opportunities to succeed as those who are fortunate enough to find higher paying jobs. Over the last four decades, the pay of the top one percent most wealthy Americans has increased disproportionately to the federal minimum wage (Cooper). According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the minimum wage kept up with the rate by which the top one percent was being paid, the value would be $28.34/hr. (Cooper). The result has been an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor, a form of inequality which has been linked to decreases in economic growth. According to economists, Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry,

The difference between countries that can sustain rapid growth for

many years or even decades and the many others that see growth

spurts fade quickly may be the level of inequality. Countries may

find that improving [income] equality may also improve efficiency,

understood as more sustainable long-run growth (Berg).

Berg and Ostry’s study of different countries, with different levels of income inequality, revealed that countries with better equality were more apt to maintain economic growth. To help close the income gap and thus improve the economy, it is imperative that the minimum wage be raised to a fair level. The income gap will only expand if the minimum wage continues to lose value at the rate that it is now.

It is very often argued that that the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, or any increase in the minimum wage for that matter, would be detrimental to the economy and cost jobs. This idea, however, is not reality. As mentioned earlier, raising the minimum wage would help benefit the economy by closing the income gap. It would also serve as a natural economic stimulus by allowing low wage workers to have more disposable income. Experts believe that the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 would translate into “32 billion dollars in new economic activity” (Morton). Consumerism, being the driving force of our economy, relies on spending for growth.  A 1994 study by Berkley University also confirmed that there was no sign of job losses after the minimum wage was increased in New Jersey (Card). In fact, it is often believed by economists that the amount of jobs would actually rise due to the increased economic activity brought on by the increase (Morton). Arguments against a raise in the minimum wage are typically the result of strong lobbying by companies wishing to maintain the status quo. The result of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 would not be job losses and a failure in the economy.

Another common argument is that minimum wage workers are just seeking more money for doing less work. This argument is also grossly inaccurate. Based on data from the United States Department of Labor Statistics, the overall productivity of American workers has increased consistently for over half a century. The graph in figure two demonstrates a critical problem with the minimum wage as it is tied to overall productivity.

Figure 2: A graph comparing the value of the minimum wage to productivity

levels as provided by the Department of Labor Statistics (Schmitt).

As can be witnessed in figure two, the connection between productivity and the value of the minimum wage ended in the late sixties. Since then, the gap between the two has increased dramatically. Despite doing more work, the minimum wage has only decreased. Low wage workers, in supporting a raise in the minimum wage, are simply fighting for what they deserve. It is only fair that they be paid what they are worth.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 has been introduced with the intentions of fixing the current problems with the minimum wage, and establishing a system to prevent future injustices caused by it. The act would help to improve the lives and offer opportunities to low wage workers, who, after the recession, are one of the most vulnerable groups of United States citizens. Today, the value of the federal minimum wage is much less than it was decades ago causing an epidemic of persistent poverty in which families are unable to afford necessities like housing. The recession has destroyed the hopes of millions of Americans to climb the ladder to prosperity as they are unable to truly get ahead, no matter how hard they work. With their numbers increasing, it is becoming all the more important to address the problem with the far too low minimum wage. For a better, fairer working America, the time has come to do what is right and enact the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. It may be our best option to help preserve the “American Dream,” for the present and the future.

Works Cited

"2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines." 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines. United State Department of

            Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

Berg, Andrew G., and Jonathan D. Ostry. Equality And Efficiency. Rep. IMF.org, Sept. 2011.

            Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

Bravve, Elina. "Out of Reach 2013." National Low Income Housing Coalition. N.p., 12 Mar. 13.

            Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the

            Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Rep. N.p.: Berkley University,

            1994. Print.

Cooper, David. "Putting a $9 Minimum Wage in Context." Economic Policy Institute. N.p., 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

"Facts." Raisetheminimumwage.org. National Employment Law Project, n.d. Web. 19 Apr.

            2013.

Green, Michael. "NewsRoom." AAA Identifies Motorist Breaking Point on Gas Prices in New

            Consumer Index. American Automobile Association, 23 Apr. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2013.

Hall, Doug, and David Cooper. "The Economic Policy Institute." Economic Policy Institute.

            N.p., 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

Johnson, Benney. "Not Just Gas! Check Out the Drastic Price Increases on These 21 Everyday

            Items." Theblaze.com. N.p., 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2013.

Konen, Leah. "What Minimum Wage Buys, Then and Now." MSN.com. Microsoft, n.d. Web.

            25 Apr. 2013.

Morton, Ishton W. "Benefiting from the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013."

            Thecincinatiherald.com. The Cincinati Herald, 23 Mar. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.

"Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13

            Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2013.

Plumer, Brad. "How the Recession Turned Middle-class Jobs into Low-wage Jobs." The

            Washington Post. N.p., 28 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

Powell, Michael. "Profits Are Booming. Why Aren't Jobs?" The New York Times. The New

            York Times, 09 Jan. 2011. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

"S. 460: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013." GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

Schmitt, John. The Minimum Wage Is Too Damn Low. Rep. N.p.: Center for Economic and

            Policy Research, 2012. Print.

United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Productivity and Related Data, Business and

            Nonfarm Business Sectors,1963-2012. N.p.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2013.

            Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

Warren, John. "A Minimum Wage Story." Personal interview. 18 Apr. 2013.

The Hidden Spill

Earlier, I wrote an essay on the effects of advertising called "Climate Change: The Elephant in the Room." It highlighted the ways by which the American public is largely unaware of critical environmental issues taking place right now. I linked the lack of awareness to a media which innately censored stories and information to protect the reputation of their advertisers. News networks like CNN and FOX News rely on, for a large part of their profits, on advertising for companies which have strong ties to the oil industry. The result, as I described, was a certain amount of censorship on stories on climate change in order to prevent those companies from ever being portrayed in a bad light. Just breaking now, is a story closely related to my argument in my essay, that will prove to be a significant player in the future of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The following video serves as a good introduction to the problem:

This video was uploaded on Youtube.com, March 31,2013, showing a neighborhood in Arkansas severely effected by a recent ExxonMobil pipeline oil spill.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "the ExxonMobil pipeline spill, initially estimated to have released at least 157,000 gallons of crude oil [has] driven more than 20 families from their homes." (Pearce). This spill, which is now worse than previously estimated was devastating to the families effected as well as the surrounding ecosystem which was primarily environmentally sensitive wetlands (Shrogren). Still, despite all the damage, media coverage has been remarkably low.

I found out about this spill by stumbling upon the video above on April 1. Naturally, I wanted to learn more, only to find that information was not easily available. Usually, major issues immediately hit the headlines, but that was not the case with this Arkansas oil spill. During the first week following the spill, the only news story I could find from an agency I knew was NPR. NPR of course, is publicly funded, and therefore unrestrained by the agendas of their advertisers. I started to wonder if this spill was purposely hidden from the public.

Upon further investigation, after nearly two weeks after the spill, I found another news agency that picked up on the mysterious lack of information, the RT Network. By no surprise, like NPR, they are also non-profit. The following video brings up an interesting question.

 The RT Network speculates that a no fly-zone around the spill is part of an Exxon Mobil cover up.

According to RT, the no-fly zone around the spill, set up by the FAA, may be an attempt to hide the damage from the public. It is important to keep in mind that this also comes in a time when oil companies are trying to get the Keystone XL pipeline passed. A spill of this magnitude would most certainly sway some public opinion against the pipeline. As I mentioned in my essay, "Climate Change: The Elephant in the Room," companies like ExxonMobil have incredible power in the United States government. It would not surprise me at all, if they were indeed using the FAA to prevent negative publicity.
 
This oil spill goes to show how much power oil companies like ExxonMobil have. They can manipulate the media, as well as the government, at their own whim. There is the old cliché that "money can't buy happiness." Try telling that to the oil industry.

Works Cited

Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas. Prod. Drew Barnes. 2013. Online Video.

"Media Grounded: No-fly Zone over Arkansas Oil Spill to Censor News Coverage?" YouTube. 
             YouTube, 04 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.

Pearce, Matt April. "Arkansas Oil Spill Is Only a Fraction of Annual Pipeline Losses." Los Angeles
             Times. Los Angeles Times, 12 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.

 Shogren, Elizabeth. "Arkansas Oil Spill Sheds Light On Aging Pipeline System." NPR. NPR, 04
             Apr. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.

Fracking: A Problematic Solution

            In recent years, exploitation of unconventional oil and natural gas reserves in the United States has generated much controversy. At the height of the debate is a relatively new fossil fuel mining method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Unlike conventional drilling, fracking utilizes water and chemicals under pressure to fracture underground shale rock, thus releasing, what is referred to as shale gas or oil, which may be trapped within it (King). While the technique has existed for over a century, new chemical and drilling advancements have caused it to boom since the 1990s. The method has proven successful at tapping once inaccessible reserves throughout the country and the world, but has also posed several new risks to the environment and public health. In response to numerous cases of contaminated land and water supplies as result of fracking activities, states have begun to regulate the relatively new industry. Supporters believe strongly that the benefits it would have for United States energy security far outweigh the disadvantages and that regulations should be lifted to increase access to public and private land. However, considering evidence from past fracking accidents, it is hard to say that promoting it would be in the best interest of the American people. Due to its potentially damaging effects on the environment and public health, fracking should not be pursued as a method to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign energy.  

            According to advocates, bans and regulations on fracking should be loosened, in order to decrease the United States’ dependence on foreign energy and boost the economy. According to the American Petroleum Institute, “fracking has been used in more than one million U.S. wells, and has safely produced more than seven billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas” (“Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow”). Advocates maintain that even with so much past production, environmental impact has been minimal. It is also believed that with further exploitation of once inaccessible oil and natural gas reserves, the United States will significantly reduce oil imports from foreign countries. Domestic fracking has the ability to make trillions of cubic feet of natural gas available for our use (“Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow”). Considering that natural gas is a relatively clean fossil fuel, it would not only improve our energy security, but could help usher in a new gas-powered economy. With conventional oil supplies on the decline, it seems to some, that fracking will be our best option to supply our future energy needs.

To some degree, advocates of fracking have a point. History has shown us that when we depend too much on foreign oil, we are susceptible to the instabilities of the countries we import from. In 1973, OPEC countries, angered about United States support for Isreal in the Yom Kippur War, embargoed all petroleum shipments to the United States and its allies, causing an energy crisis. The result quadrupled the cost of oil per barrel, and caused massive shortages of gasoline, diesel, and other essential oil based products (“1973 Oil Crisis”). To avoid such crises again, we would logically need to become more self-reliant in the energy sector. While the United States has been decreasing oil production since 1970, fracking is one way that we could slightly rebound that decline (EIA). According to the United States Energy Information Administration, there is an estimated 862 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable natural gas from fracking within the borders of the United States (EIA). Natural gas from fracking could be a good alternative to oil as supporters of the drilling method often highlight. With oil steadily increasing in price and decreasing in supply, there will come a time when we will no longer be able to use oil to power our economy. The massive natural gas resource the United States has would clearly make us one of the world’s leading producers, but in turn may severely damage our own land.

The use of fracking would in part increase our overall supply of oil and natural gas, but only at a cost of the local and global environment as well as public health. In the words of Laurie Gral, “Fracking has caught the public's attention by raising concerns about the contamination of water wells, air pollution, above-ground spills, earthquakes and property damage it may cause” ("Who wants to be a Shaleionaire? Hidden concerns of fracking"). There have been numerous reports recently regarding questionable drilling practices by fracking companies, some of which have to make us question whether it is worth the potential damage. There is also the issue of global environmental harm, in which the exploitation of shale gas could delay innovations in renewable energy. By making a massive fossil fuel source available, there will be little reason for people to begin moving toward alternative energies like wind or solar. With climate change becoming more and more of a threat, a delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions could be very problematic for future generations.

The hydraulic fracturing process requires the use of various chemicals that have proven to be very damaging to the local ecosystem and especially drinking water supplies. Above ground spills of chemical laden fracking fluid have led to numerous reports of animal and plant deaths surrounding the spill according to the non-profit group Earthjustice. In one 2009 report, “nearly all of the aquatic life was wiped out along a 30-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek” in Blacksville, Virgina. (“Fracking Across the United States”). The cause was later tied to fracking fluids which were disposed of in the creek. Along with this, there have been thousands of reports nationwide of water contamination by fracking activities (Gral). The potential for water contamination is highest for underground water supplies as shown in figure 1.  

Figure 1: This diagram of hydraulic fracturing demonstrates the potential for contamination of underground water supplies (Stephens).

When water and chemicals are forced down a drill shaft, it causes fractures in the surrounding rock. As shown in figure 1, the fractures can reach very close to an underground aquifer. If there is not proper sealing between the shale rock and aquifer, it is then very likely that the aquifer will become contaminated with the chemicals. The situation can escalate if the aquifer is connected to several drinking water wells as the water may become toxic or radioactive (Gral). If regulations on fracking were loosened, the potential damage, as shown by past accidents, would be devastating to local communities relying on aquifers for water. In this sense, the damage that fracking could do would far outweigh its benefits it would have in improving energy security.

On a larger scale, by opening up United States natural gas reserves, fracking could inadvertently cause a century delay in addressing global climate change. Opponents and supporters of fracking agree that oil is a limited resource and that natural gas could, in theory, replace it with regards to transportation and energy production. While natural gas is much cleaner than oil, producing half the carbon dioxide emissions, it is still a fossil fuel, and would still contribute to global climate change (EPA). Some say that natural gas would serve as a good stepping stone to renewable energy. However, the United States’ current natural gas reserves are expected to last for at least a century given our current rate of consumption. A century of a natural gas economy, would also be a century with little in the way of environmental progress. With an abundant source of a fuel that we know well, investors would be less likely to invest in newer, more risky renewable energies. In a sense, by making natural gas more available, fracking would deter innovations that would help curb global climate change. The delay could be very damaging, if climate change predictions are correct.

            The disadvantages of fracking outweigh it advantage to provide enhanced energy security in the United States. Advocates of the drilling method acknowledge that a combination of foreign oil dependence and the depletion of our oil supplies will require us to reduce our demand on oil. A better solution than fracking however, would be by investing in renewable energies like windpower, biofuels, or solar. For New York, the possibility of transitioning their entire energy infrastructure to renewable energy is within reach as Rob Jordan of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, explains.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will soon decide whether  to

approve hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the state. To

date, no alternative to expanded gas drilling has been proposed.

But a new study finds that it is technically and economically

feasible to convert New York's all-purpose energy infrastructure

to one powered by wind, water and sunlight. (Jordan)

The possibility for creating an economy entirely dependent on renewable energy is possible for not only New York, but the country. By investing in clean energy, the United States would be able to track on a path toward energy independence, all the while slowing the effects of climate change. It would have the same economic and energy security benefit of fracking, without the potential damage to the environment.

            The damaging effects of fracking does not justify the risk that it can pose to the environment and public health. Advocates propose that regulations on fracking should loosened in order to promote energy security for the United States. In truth, fracking would dramatically improve energy security by increasing the United States’ production of domestic fuel. The consequences, however, can be problematic for not only those living around drilling sites but for the world. Fracking would make an incredible natural gas resource available for our use, but may in turn delay progress to slow down climate change, and could cause dangerous land and water contamination. For that reason, a better alternative to improving United States energy security would be to promote and invest in clean, renewable energy.

Works Cited

"1973 Oil Crisis." Actionforex.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

"Fracking Across the United States." Map. Earthjustice.org. N.p., 9 May 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Gral, Laurie. "Who wants to be a Shaleionaire? Hidden concerns of fracking." Journal of Property Management Jan.-Feb. 2013: 28+. Academic OneFile. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

"How Dependent Are We on Foreign Oil?" Eia.gov. United States Energy Information Administration, 13 July 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

"Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow." Energytomorrow.org. American Petroleum Institute, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Jordan, Rob. "Stanford Researcher Maps out an Alternative Energy Future for New York." Stanford.edu. Stanford University, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

King, Hobart. "What Is Hydraulic Fracturing." Geology.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

"Natural Gas." EPA.gov. Environmental Protection Agency, 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Stephens, Duane. "Hydraulic Fracking Has Rewarded Oil and Gas Investors." Technorati.com. N.p., 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

A Word on Compromise

According to a Gallup Poll, congress had an average approval rating of 14% last year (Newport). This indicates to me, as it should to anyone else reading this, that there might be a problem with the way congress is operating. According to the Democrats, the Republicans are the problem because they refuse to negotiate. Interestingly, the Republicans blame the Democrats for the exact same thing. Still, no progress is being made to pass bills for the greater good of the citizens of the United States, or to improve their dismal approval rating. The solution naturally would be to compromise on the issues set before them, but this has never been a talent of our nation's senate. Every decision made in this country is either black or white; there is no grey area, compromise, or acknowledgement of the other side of an argument. The reason for such bullheadedness just may be the method of our congress people's arguments.

A typical argument consists of a thesis, followed by evidence to support that thesis, a refutation of the opposing argument, and a conclusion (Kirszner). This general method has always been good at starting fights, but rarely addresses a serious problem in our society because at least one side is blind to the other's opinion. A pro gun advocate would completely ignore any argument for gun control simply because they feel their view is under attack. They don't see a universal problem or any way to compromise, because in their mind, they are the only person who can possibly be right. The problem with the traditional argument is that it fails to acknowledge the opposing view. Without respecting another's opinion, absolutely no compromise can be made.

Psychologist, Carl Rogers, developed the Rogerian Argument form to create an argument grounded in compromise and respect rather than frustration. It consists of the usual thesis, evidence, and refutation, but includes a more civilized manner by which to argue. The speaker addresses a universal problem and suggests solutions all while maintaining that the opposing argument does have some validity. It is less of an "attack" on an opposing view than a typical argument and generally has more success at reaching a verdict. A pro gun advocate may coynsider listening to another's argument if they can see a common problem and realize that the other person respects their opinion. 

If our political parties used Rogerian argument to address their concerns about the United States, we would be in much better shape than we currently are now. Every argument in the senate always seems to end up as a stalemate. Even problems with an almost obvious solution continue to see no progress being made whatsoever. The Rogerian Argument makes all the sense in the world to achieve a solution to an argument. One would think that congress would be the first to employ it's method. Considering that they don't, I really  question how fit our elected officials really are to run this country. 

Works Cited

Kirszner, Laurie G., and Stephen R. Mandell. "Understanding Argument." Practical Argument: A Text and

              Anthology. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. N. pag. Print.

Newport, Frank. "Congress Begins 2013 With 14% Approval." Congress Begins 2013 With 14%   

            Approval. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.

The Global Warming Paradise

Here's a segment from Fox News that may be interesting...

Demonstrated in this Fox News segment  is the single biggest misconception about climate change, or "global warming"

The term global warming has long been used to describe the average global temperature increase over the last century by scientists worldwide. However, because of it's terminology, confusion has run rampant throughout the media and the general public as to it's meaning. Many, (including Fox News apparently) are now under the impression that global warming always means warmer winters and less snow. Some go as far as believing that they will soon be able to go to the beach in the dead of winter. In some cases, like in the preceding video, any snowfall is perfect grounds for disproving global warming all-together. Such beliefs are tragically inaccurate and are simply a result of a lack of understanding of the concept.

I, as well as the scientific community now choose to use the term climate change rather than global warming to describe the increase  of average global temperature. This is to avoid confusing people with their previous notions of global warming as a tropical paradise. The real truth of global climate change is tragically different than is commonly believed. True, some places will receive less snow per year, but in return will be experiencing more, potentially devastating, climatic abnormalities. Chicago for instance, may have record low snowfall totals, but in the same year may experience their longest and hottest dry-spell. Global climate change can be better described by more extreme weather for places that never had such extremes. Massive snowstorms are not out of the question, as are not massive hurricanes like Sandy which devastated the east coast.

To put it simply, if people don't know that climate change exists, or if humans are the cause of it, they are unlikely to take measures to slow the process down. Fox News, and other news agencies, play a big roll in this misunderstanding. The difference between the general public, which is largely informed by the media, and scientists, educated on climate change, is evidenced by the graph below.

Figure 1. Response to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The general public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx) (Masters).

The graph above has been compiled from a survey of 3146 climate scientists and a 2008 Gallup poll (Masters). It clearly shows that scientists, that work in the field and have seen the evidence, overwhelmingly agree that climate change is  mostly caused by human activities. The general public however, does not have this sort of agreement. According to the graph, around 40% of the public don't believe that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures" (Masters). Less than 60% are in agreement with it, unlike 97% of actively publishing climatologists. People simply don't understand climate change enough to make educated decisions. It is very likely that the media is to blame.

Works cited

Masters, Jeff, Dr. "Opinion Polls on Climate Change." Web log post. Wunderground.com. N.p., n.d. Web.

           11 Feb. 2013.

Climate Change: The Elephant in the Room

As if monster storms, brutal heat, and decade long droughts were not enough, one would think losing our cities to the ocean would make people think twice about global climate change. Still, they would be hard pressed to find anyone today, particularly in the United States, who have a concrete opinion on the matter. Global climate change, more commonly referred to as global warming, has been building momentum for over a century, due to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions as result of human activities. The potential consequences, as estimated from an overwhelming amount of evidence, are immense. Still, the people and government of the United States, continue to promote activities that are detrimental to the environment all the while discouraging those that are not. We continue to see little in the ways of environmental progress in our society even as the effects of global climate change become more apparent. This slow environmental progress raises a question, why is there so much pushback from Americans on an issue that just may be the biggest challenge of our future? The reason for the lack of response to climate change is a result of special interests’ dedication to maintaining the current economic status quo.

When we consider the most profitable businesses in the world, there are always a handful that consistently make the top ten of the Fortune 500 list. Among the most notable in 2012 were Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips (CNNMoney). All of these companies have one aspect in common; they all rely on fossil fuels to make a profit. Fossil fuels, which include oil, natural gas, coal, and their by-products, are the dominant source for energy in the United States and the world. In 2011 alone, “nonrenewable fossil fuels made up more than four-fifths of U.S. energy consumption” (U.S. Energy Information Administration). Fossil fuels are notoriously dirty fuels from an environmental perspective as they release a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when they are burned (Kaczmarek). Carbon dioxide is considered the lead contributor to global warming as it traps heat in the atmosphere and thus warms the planet (Kaczmarek). Oil companies like Exxon Mobil rely solely on oil to make their profit. Environmental progress logically means reducing fossil fuel consumption, a situation which is less than ideal for companies so dedicated to profiting off of them. This, as it turns out, has become one of the biggest hindrances for environmental progress.

We would be naïve to believe that a company like Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the world, has little say in United States politics. According to The Center for Responsive Politics, fossil fuel companies invested over $138,000,000 in lobbying efforts in the United States government in 2012 (“Lobbying Spending Database”). Among the bills they lobbied for was an amendment to the Clean Air Act to “prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change” (“Lobbying Spending Database”). This amendment would essentially eliminate the chance of the EPA regulating CO₂ emissions to curb its effects on climate change. It would be a clear win for the fossil fuel lobby, as they would not be forced to reduce their environmental impact. Reducing their environmental impact would require significant investment in green technologies which would, in turn, affect their profits negatively. Such lobbying is all too common in Washington, and it is ultimately preventing bills related to climate change from getting passed. The effects of the private sector on mitigating climate change are not limited to government, but on the people of the United States as well.

Educating the public on an issue is one of the most important methods to gain support for a cause. Much like electing a political figure, people need knowledge to make an educated decision on an issue; otherwise they will not be able to establish a concrete opinion. As far as climate change goes, Americans have always been ill-informed. According to a Yale University study, only one in ten Americans believe they are “very well informed about climate change;” of those test subjects, only fifty percent “understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities” (Leiserowitz). The fact that global warming is caused by human activities is no longer debated in the scientific community as it is believed by a large percentage of Americans. Based on Yale University’s study, too many Americans are kept out of the loop with regard to climate change. This misunderstanding and lack of knowledge are the results of very poor coverage on climate change by the media.

News networks like CBS, FOX, and CNN have the ability to connect with and inform an incredible amount of people. As a result, much of our knowledge about current events and issues is derived from such sources. According to a Media Matters For America research study, climate change continues to see little coverage in the media, despite scientist’s rising concerns (Fitzsimmons). Jill Fitzsimmons explains the decline in coverage with Sunday news programs like Meet The Press and This Week,

Since 2009, climate coverage on the Sunday shows has declined

every year. In 2012, the Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on

climate change, down from 9 minutes in 2011, 21 minutes in 2010,

and over an hour in 2009. The vast majority of coverage - 89 percent

- was driven by politics, and none was driven by scientific findings

(Fitzsimmons).

Despite 2012 being the hottest year on record, with the worst United States drought, Hurricane Sandy, and the most sea ice melt in history, news coverage of climate change was the lowest it had been in four years. United States news networks clearly chose not to include climate change in their programs. They also made the choice to interview, not scientists who understand the subject, but republican politicians who typically have an anti-climate change belief (Fitzsimmons). The reason for this censorship is the television network’s affiliation with certain companies.

Television networks make a profit by selling commercial and sponsorship spaces throughout their programming. It is then in their best interest, from a business standpoint, to censor news stories and topics that may work against the interest of their advertisers. For example, if a grocery store sponsored a news segment, it would be very unlikely that the network would choose to include any stories about food poisoning as it might deter people from buying certain foods. The same goes for companies with anti–climate change interests. Automobiles are considered one of the biggest problems with regard to climate change due to their emissions and fossil fuel use. A news story, sponsored by a car company, simply would not include any information regarding climate change because it would portray it in a bad light. Automotive advertising has been, for the last three years, the highest advertising expenditure out of all consumer product categories and is rising (Kantar Media). It only makes sense that a news network would not “bite the hand that feeds them.” The result, however, only hurts the viewers, as they can be misled or uninformed about an important issue. Without knowledge about climate change, the public is not able to develop an opinion and push for reform.

            Some people and businesses believe that the reason for such lack of knowledge about climate change is simply because it is a lesser problem than other current issues. People in the United States are caring more about more immediate issues like the economy and job creation. Climate change at this time is not on the minds of Americans and, in some cases, is completely ignored or mocked. They do not believe that an already weak economy should be risked on attempting to mitigate the effects of climate change. In truth, enacting new regulations, and pushing for environmental reform will be difficult given the state of the economy. However, it is imperative that progress be made to protect future generations. Americans that consider today’s economy a higher priority to addressing climate change fail to understand the potential consequences it might have on the economy itself in the future. If scientific predictions are correct, on the effects of climate change, the agricultural industry will struggle, gas prices will rise uncontrollably, and coastlines and major cities will be overtaken by rising oceans. It is likely that if the skeptics knew the true effects of global climate change on the future, they would consider it a higher priority. The cause for their skepticism just may be a lack of understanding on the subject.

            The goal of big companies is to make a profit, and sometimes a profit requires unsustainable practices. Companies like Exxon Mobil make their money from selling fossil fuels, which are considered major contributors to global climate change. They invest in lobbying efforts in the government to prevent environmental reforms from changing their ways. Having anti-climate change agendas translates into the media, where immense advertising expenditures keep important information out of the minds of the general public. Such censorship leads to an ill-informed society, where a catastrophe as devastating as climate change can be kept hidden away. It leads to skepticism and ultimately a country unprepared for the future. Scientists are peering into our future now and they are revealing potentially devastating consequences of our actions today. The writing is on the wall, and the initiative must be made to change for the better.

Works Cited

"Ad Spending." TVB.org. Television Bureau of Advertising, n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.

Fitzsimmons, Jill. Media Matters For America. Rep. N.p., 8 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2013.

Bernstein, Lenny, et al. An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Rep. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nov. 2007. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.

"Fortune 500 2012: Fortune 1000 Companies 1-100." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 21 May 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.

Kaczmarek, Stephen. "The Carbon Economy." Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA. 4 Dec. 2012. Lecture.

Leiserowitz, Anthony, Nicholas Smith, and Jennifer R. Marlon. Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale.edu. N.p., 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

"Lobbying Spending Database H.R.910, 2010." Opensecrets RSS. The Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." Energy Perspectives: Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Consumption. N.p., 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.