SUSAmerican Governments America has been one of the most diverse countries out there. We are given plenty of opportunity which has made us evolve as a nation, and we continue to raise the countries standards at a higher and higher rate. Everything around us has had the opportunity to mature and grow, but has this been the case for our people’s health and well being? Look again...
Our dietary habits are the leading driver of death and disability, causing an estimated 700,000 deaths each year. Heart disease, stroke, obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cancers, immune function, brain health – all are influenced by what we eat. For example, our recent research estimated that poor diet causes nearly half of all U.S. deaths due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes. There are almost 1,000 deaths from these causes alone, every day. By combining national data on demographics, eating habits and disease rates with empirical evidence on how specific foods are linked to health, we find that most problems are caused by too few healthy foods like lack of fruits and vegetables and instead gain too much salt, processed meats, red meats and sugary drinks (Mozaffarian, 2017). Point being, America has been struggling with health issues all throughout the nation. The biggest cause of these health issues include the food that we grow and eat. As a nation, we need to step up our game and change the flaws in the quality of our food. This also means the way that we raise/feed our animals, how they live, and where we get our products from. This is a harm to everyone in the nation, and we should all be given the cream of the crop by simply giving the respect that is needed. According to FoodDive, author Lillianna Byington writes about how voters decided to pass a measure regulating the amount of space farm animals have in cages and crates. The results were highly disappointing as the animals were not treated with respect. These results mean poor quality in product. Starting in 2020, animal confinement would change by banning the sale of eggs from hens which confines to less than one square foot of floor space per hen, as well as the sale of calves in areas with less than 43 square feet of space per animal. Then beginning in 2022, egg-laying hens would have to be kept cage-free and breeding pigs would need at least 24 square feet of usable floor space per animal (Byington, 2018). This could lead to a multitude of problems because of the fact that our food is being mistreated by the way it lives before it dies. If we could wrap our heads together and realize that we shouldn’t be completely opposed of what is right for our lives and the future generations to come, then we would be more willing to go forth with this project of improvement. For instance, the ballot measure in Massachusetts passed in 2010, and scheduled to take effect in 2022, mandates all pork, veal and eggs farmed and sold comes from animals not confined to small areas. But the initiative has faced backlash from critics in the farming industry who say it would force out-of-state farmers to comply and that violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce between states. Currently 13 states are suing Massachusetts to stop the cage-free egg voter initiative (Byington, 2018). Unfortunately the California measure could see similar legal struggles if other states don't want to comply with these new standards to sell their products in the state. But if both the ballot measures withstand the potential legal battles ahead, more states across the country could set new standards for animal cages. And this isn’t the last of it.To put this food reform situation altogether, the food policy plate is full to overflowing. According to Sean McBride, the Farm Bill is mired in politics. New approaches to trade have created instability for farms and farmers. Federal agencies don’t quite yet know how they are going to regulate plant-based and laboratory-grown food. This is just a start. The federal government’s dietary guidance for consumers, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is stuck at the starting gate. The United States Department of Agriculture has not issued congressionally mandated labeling regulations for foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. It is stated that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is working on a national nutrition strategy as well as a regulatory framework for the use of gene-edited crops (McBride, 2018). We are a nation that has grown to be one of the top countries in the world. Our health should be on the top of this list as well. Without changing the ways of our food quality and “ignore” these issues, then we will continue to be have a major decline in our food industry. We need to make a change, and it’s got to happen now.
0 Comments
Anti-buffetAmerican Governments What are the issues?
In United States, millions of households contribute to the food waste crisis which has resulted in the creation of billions of dollars in food waste over the years. Not only that, this issue has a massive impact on aspects of our economy, education systems, agricultural habits, and the environment as a whole. The solution should be to band together with organizations such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) in order to reduce 50% of the food waste that is currently thrown out by 2030. What is food waste? Food waste is simply defined—it is the food we discard both intentionally or accidentally. This wasteful practice occurs everywhere; at home, school, the workplace, while shopping, in a restaurant, on a farm, etc. According to the USDA, food waste takes up to 30-40% of the total food supply. Why do we have food waste? Poor planning: People are too busy to properly prepare a list of groceries prior to going to the market resulting in over-buying and food waste due to a lack of planning. Additionally, instead of bringing the leftover food at home for the next day, many individuals continue to eat in restaurants which can often create further food waste. Over preparation: Preparing several meals at the same tine will be more efficient and convenient. However, the food might go bad before eating it and we can grow bored of the same meals. Bulk buying: We tend to buy more when food is on sale even though we don’t really need them. Agricultural production, harvest, processing and distribution: Food waste resulted from damage, spill, transportation, attacked from insects or diseases. How does food waste affect our life? Waste of water: 70% of water is used for agriculture as well as food processing and preparation but most of the food goes to waste. Waste of energy: The U.S. uses a lot of energy for agriculture, the food distribution process, and powering home cooking appliances for food that will not be eaten. Waste of land: Up to a 1/3 of the entire 1.4 billion hectares of the food producing farms in the country’s food products will go to waste every year. Environment:Food waste is one of the contributing factors for global warming and climate change. Food waste ends up at landfills will produce a tremendous amount of methane which can be more harmful than CO2. Political Impact: According to the Press Release No. 0021.18, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to improve coordination and communication across federal agencies attempting to better educate Americans on the impacts and importance of reducing food loss and waste by joining the Winning on Reducing Food Wasteinitiative. How to reduce food waste? From the consumers:
Ventus 26American Governments At some point you’ve probably heard the term “global warming” thrown around on television or the internet. But what does this phrase mean, and why does it matter? Global warming is an important issue worthy of attention because, if unchecked, its lasting effects include: more extreme temperatures, both hot and cold; increased weather catastrophes, such as tropical cyclones and hurricanes; more instances of debilitating drought; and rising sea levels that could contaminate drinking water and harm coastal environments. Clearly, these scenarios are something we want to avoid, but in order to fight global warming we must first understand what it is and how it is caused.
Global warming is the gradual increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and surface due to the greenhouse effect caused by high levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), and other pollutants in the air. The picture below does a nice job of illustrating the greenhouse effect , if you are unfamiliar with the term: The greenhouse effect is essential for understanding global warming, because greenhouse gas molecules act as a blanket around the earth that trap heat near its surface. The more molecules that accumulate in the air, the more heat gets trapped and the more the surface temperature rises. And the majority of climate scientists agree that the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions–and, in turn, the current global warming trend – is human activity. Over the last century, humans have primarily generated energy by burning either coal or oil. This can occur on an industrial scale at a coal-fired power plant, or on an individual scale by using gasoline to power automobiles. But the burning of these fossil fuels has the side effect of releasing carbon dioxide molecules into the air, which gather in the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect. CFC’s, on the other hand, are becoming less common since more is known about their harmful side-effects, but they are used in the manufacture of aerosol sprays (like hairspray) and as refrigerants. While many believe that there are no consequences to the burning of coal or the use of products like hairspray, the evidence suggests otherwise. Global surface temperatures have been rising steadily since 1901, and over the past 30 years the rate has accelerated dramatically (“Climate”). Right now, there is still time to take action against global warming and reduce its effects, but there will come a point where it becomes irreversible and could forever change life as we know it. Election Impact Global warming is a very topical subject discussed at nearly all levels of government, both state and national. At the state level, California has made several positive moves towards combating global warming, including passing the California Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006. By requiring a substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions throughout the state, this act “was the first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate change” (California). While it is excellent that the California legislature acknowledges that global warming is a serious threat and has taken significant action, the largest impact on the fight against global warming comes at the national level, since national elections and legislation direct the course of action the entire country will take. The recent 2016 presidential election had many repercussions for this fight, and it is where the efforts to reverse global warming need improvement. While not the main issue addressed, global warming was a topic of discussion during the 2016 presidential race. The frontrunners were Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, and according to a 2016 Yale report, 92% of Clinton’s supporters believed global warming is happening, while only 56% of Trump’s supporters shared that belief. In addition, 76% of Clinton supporters believed that global warming is caused by human activity, compared to 55% for Trump supporters (Leiserowitz et al.). The divide in these statistics mirror the differing views of the candidates, which is why the inauguration of President Trump had several negative consequences on the effort to stop global warming. Trump and his administration have maintained a stance that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese, and that it is certainly not caused by human activity. He often tweets about winter storms, using them as evidence that global warming doesn’t exist (which highlights a common misconception that weather is the same as climate). Because of his unyielding beliefs, Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, an agreement signed by every other nation in the world that pledged to undertake efforts to combat climate change. In addition, he reversed a climate policy established by President Obama that aimed to expedite the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions. Trump instead introduced a proposal that would allow states to establish their own emissions standards for coal-fired power plants, prolonging our nation’s substantial contribution to the greenhouse effect. Finally, Trump’s most recent nominee to take over the EPA – the agency charged with protecting the environment – stated in his confirmation hearing that he “would not call [global warming] the greatest crisis” (Ebbs), essentially confirming that he would not make combating the causes of global warming a priority. The results of the 2016 presidential election will have many negative long -term effects on the effort to stop global warming, and the actions taken by the president’s administration will help propel the climate towards the point of no return. However, many Americans are becoming more aware that global warming is a current issue–not just an abstract event in the future– that affects everyone regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. It is because of this that the issue of global warming will most likely take a more prominent position in the upcoming 2020 election, hopefully producing candidates who are committed to reducing human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. And a s long as we don’t give up on fighting against global warming, hope remains that we can avoid a world on fire. McguireCalifornia Politics Countless qualified scientific research efforts have determined that our environment is changing. Worldwide atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen rapidly and drastically since the 1950s. This spike in carbon dioxide marks the highest measured atmospheric levels in over 400,000 years. Rising levels of carbon dioxide result in rising global temperatures, which have been on the rise since 1884. Researchers estimate that the current warming trend is a direct result of human activity with a probability of over 95%. 18 of the 19 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, with the 19th hottest year recorded in 1998. Humanity has polluted the atmosphere with an excess of carbon dioxide, which has in turn led to hotter global temperatures. The consequences of these circumstances are far-reaching and complex. As such, for the sake of this climate critique, direct results of manmade climate change will come second to exploring California’s legislative and political climate regarding the climate of Earth.
While climate change affects all living things on the planet, California’s role in climate reform is pinnacle in that it tends to be at the forefront of environmental regulation and policy. Since the passage of Assembly Bill 4420 in September of 1988, California has passed 28 climate-related bills, mostly aimed at regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Many of these bills are responsible for establishing a timeline by which the California legislature must enact GHG emission limits. For example, AB 1493, and SB 1383 require the state to establish GHG emission reduction targets, in addition to setting a deadline for necessary follow-up legislation aimed at meeting those targets. AB 32 and SB 32 could be considered follow-up legislation to the preceding bills; for both AB 32 and SB 32 set hard limits and deadlines where actual reductions in GHG emissions are required. In addition to the passage of bills directly related to the reduction of GHG emissions, many of the 28 climate bills address transportation. According to the California Air Resources Board, 41% of all statewide emissions come from vehicles. If California seeks to cut back on GHG emissions, then setting goals and restrictions on traditional vehicles are a logical next step. AB 8 provides funding for research for alternative methods of transportation that are eco-friendly by means of funding electric vehicle and zero emissions public transportation projects. AB 1092 mandates a minimum number of electric vehicle charging stations in newly constructed buildings and sites in order to accommodate an increasing amount of electric vehicles on the road. In an effort to understand and combat climate change, many of California’s successful climate bills address not only GHG emissions, but also renewable resources, cap-and-trade, and other programs. Given rising carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures, Californians are hoping legislators can rise to climate change’s challenges. The 2018 midterm election saw five districts elect representatives who campaigned on the importance of climate change. All freshman representatives from this election are members of the Democratic party, and each replaced Republican representatives. Among the newly elected are Congressman Mike Levin, an environmental activist endorsed by the California League of Conservation Voters, and Assemblyman Robert Rivas, who helped enact a county-wide fracking ban in San Benito county. Congressman-elect Harley Rouda has published statements showing his concern for climate, including the promotion of green energy over fossil fuels. Assemblyman-elect Katie Hill has made California air and water quality one of her priorities, and she is “willing to do whatever it takes to reverse the damage done to our environment.” Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi was reelected; and as an advocate for climate reform, he believes “climate change [to be] perhaps the greatest challenge facing planet Earth.” The 2018 Midterms also saw Californians cast their votes for climate-conscious Gavin Newsom and Eleni Kounalakis for governor and lieutenant governor respectively. Gavin Newsom pledged to carry out his predecessor’s goals for reducing GHG emissions, and has stated that “the impacts of climate change are already being felt.” Eleni Kounalakis promotes climate change awareness and believes “we must continue to push for smart policies that combat climate change.” While Californians are electing state officials who seem to be concerned with climate, the 2016 Presidential Election proved many Americans feel otherwise. President Donald Trump has been very adamant that climate change is neither a man-made phenomenon, nor a problem. He has been particularly vocal about his skepticism on Twitter, where he once tweeted “global warming is an expensive hoax.” Since becoming elected, President Trump has proposed budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and other climate change programs. He promotes the use of fossil fuels, which are proven to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere via vehicular transportation. Additionally, President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, installed fossil fuel supporter Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and buried a report on the current dangers of climate change. Despite President Trump's lack of belief in climate change, many of his election opponents like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson at least acknowledged that climate change as an issue that needs to be addressed. Although the president-elect refuses to acknowledge the existence of climate change, other popular campaigns of the 2016 Presidential Election prove that climate reform is on the minds of many Americans. Is climate change real? Yes. Do Americans and Californians alike want climate reform? Yes. Is the current administration pushing reforms to combat the consequences of climate change? No. Are Californian legislators pushing reforms to combat the consequences of climate change? Yes. The state of California and the Trump Administration have been at war with one another regarding climate change resulting in criticism from California legislators, and even legal action. Regardless of political opinion, Earth's climate will continue to change for worse if humanity cannot implement limitations on our carbon dioxide emissions. The planet won’t wait for politicians to decide whether they want to take action, or even what kind of action they wish to take. As California's political climate changes, so does the climate of Earth. Senior Ecology StudentAmerican Governments Since 1980, regulations placed on the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) in Alaska have protected ecologically important plants, animals and natural resources from becoming exploited or otherwise damaged by human development [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.D.]. These regulations have been opposed by oil companies, Republican politicians, and most Alaskan citizens, who argue that harvesting oil and gas resources from protected territories is crucial for meeting the growing energy demands of the United States. However, as global climate change continues to stress delicate tundra ecosystems, conservationists and environmental organizations warn that development could cause irreparable damage to habitats and the species that utilize them.
Shortly after President Trump took office, his administration passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which included legislation permitting the leasing of land for drilling projects in Arctic reserves [Congressional Research Service, 2017]. In December of 2018, the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a statement that of the 19.3 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve today, 1.5 million acres of Alaskan coastline are planned to be sold to bidders like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP [Muffson, 2018]. The BLM is also responsible for conducting environmental risk assessments to determine if drilling is safe; however, there is evidence that these efforts are being illegally rushed such that drilling can begin before President Trump exits office in 2020. If these drilling projects are to proceed, organizations like the Wilderness Society urge that biodiversity, aboriginal peoples, and arctic habitats will be placed at risk [The Wilderness Society, 2019]. Before the first drops of crude oil are ever harvested, natural landscapes must be cleared and then developed to accommodate the demands of drilling projects. For instance, trees, grasslands and coastal habitats may be destroyed to make way for airports, roads, and shelters used in transporting the supplies and heavy machinery required for drilling. The noise pollution from construction work alone can kill fishes and other aquatic animals, disrupt seasonal migration in birds and mammals, and alter the behaviors and mating habits of many animals. Construction may also demolish key foraging, nesting and mating habitats, decreasing resource availability for many species. Among the 270 plant and animal species that would be impacted by oil drilling projects in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve, the Porcupine Caribou may be one of the most susceptible. This large, bulky relative of the reindeer undergoes seasonal migration directly through coastal habitats, where it feeds on grasses mushrooms and pine needles. During the Summer months, it rears its young in these regions; if the Trump Administration leases this land off to oil companies, it is likely that there would not be enough quality food to support a robust population. Regulations that would limit land development, exploration and drilling during the Summer months are currently being considered, but it is unclear if there exists sufficient support for them in Congress. While purchasing plots of land from the Arctic Wildlife Reserve may seem unambiguously advantageous for oil companies, it may pose serious risks. The resources required to purchase land, search for potential drilling locations, and develop plots are not insignificant financial investments—especially when considering that the land may not be as fruitful as expected or as advertised. Oil companies will have to weigh the risks of drilling, including: the costs of development, the costs of shipping equipment to and from remote locations in Alaska, the possibility of unproductive sites, and the consequences of irreversible ecosystem damage with the potential economic benefits. Furthermore, the enthusiasm and sense of urgency displayed by the Trump Administration and potential buyers in seems misplaced when considering another risk—global energy trends. In particular, the United States’ energy demands are projected to move away from fossil fuels like coal and oil, and instead move toward renewable, sustainable sources like wind and solar energy. Because of this, the future rewards that can be expected of oil drilling operations may begin to diminish while the risks remain the same. I argue that the long-term risks and consequences of the Trump Administration leasing territory from National Arctic Wildlife Reserves to oil companies far exceeds any short-term economic benefits from oil harvests. Tags: Donald Trump, David Bernhardt, Brian Steed, Bureau of Land Management @VotingMattersCA Politics California has positioned itself as a global leader in environmental protections and policies. In the past, the State has implemented stringent rules including vehicle pollution control devices and tough vehicle fuel efficiency standards that the rest of the U.S. would come to adopt as well. However, approximately 39% of carbon dioxide emissions within California are currently being generated from gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles (mercurynews.com, 2018).
In 2018 former California Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order calling for 5 million zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) to be put into service and ordering construction of 250,000 charging stations statewide by 2030. The cost of Brown’s plan is estimated to cost $2.5 billion (mercurynews.com, 2018) and includes expansion of a current State program that provides tax credits for purchasers of ZEVs. As Brown’s gubernatorial term was coming to an end, Gavin Newsom campaigned for the Office of the Governor on a platform that included a plan to reduce green house gases primarily by an “overhaul of the transportation sector” (Newsom, 2017). Newsom was elected into office in November 2018, and immediately set an agenda that included implementing Brown’s executive order. Given the cost of Ex-Governor Brown’s plan, there is no shortage of critics that question whether Newsome should continue down the same road as Brown. Some critics question whether ZEV incentives really do spark ZEV sales or reduce greenhouse emissions. When Ex-Governor Brown issued his executive order, his plan was to raise an additional $1.6 billion of funds in support of ZEVs through the State’s carbon cap and trade auction, and another $900 million through a continuation of a clean air bill that assesses and collects a $2 vehicle registration fee. These fees would then flow into the budget for California’s Air Resources Board (ARB), among others. ARB revenues would be for clean air projects, including additional funding for rebates given to the purchasers of ZEVs through the California Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP) administered by the ARB. The CVRP was created in 2009 with the mandate to provide financial subsidies for cleaner air vehicles including Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) that initially run on electricity only before consuming fossil fuels, and vehicles that can operate with out using any fossil fuels, primarily Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs). BEVs account for 59.6% of all rebates issued by the CVRP, while PHEVs purchases have accounted for 38.2% of rebates, and FCEVs receiving 1.7% of CVRP rebates (cleanvehiclerebate.org, 2019). The CVRP is primarily funded from income generated from the state’s carbon dioxide cap and trade auction program and deposited into the GGRF, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Legislative Analyst Office, 2018). To date, the GGRF has accounted for approximately $497.7 million of the $639.3 million total subsidies handed out by the State. Additional funding for clean air vehicle subsidies is provided within Assembly Bill (AB) 118, California Alternative and Renewable Fuel, Vehicle Technology, Clean Air and Carbon Reduction Act of 2007.AB 118 created the Air Quality Improvement Program, called for its administration by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and funded the program by mandating increased smog abatement and vehicle registration fees. CARB has contributed about $115.4 million in subsidies to date. Assembly Bill (AB) 118 also established the California Energy Commission's Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. Both AB 109 in 2008 and AB 8 in 2013 legislatively modified AB 118. Collectively, the statutes appropriate $100 million to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for projects that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the State. Most relevantly, the CEC has contributed $23.1 million for rebates of ZEVs and is partnering with manufacturers of ZEVs to create a comprehensive network of ZEV charging stations. The sales of ZEVs nationwide are increasing in proportion to cars consuming fossil fuels due to a combination of Federal, State, and local utilities rebates that have driven down the cost of clean air vehicles to the point where they are competitively priced with other vehicles that consume fossil fuels. California also partners with ZEV manufacturers to build charging stations, and has offered other incentives for ZEV owners such as access to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and desirable parking spots. The rebates, along with these other incentives, have dramatically accelerated ZEV sales within California. ZEV purchases now account for approximately 5% of all new, light vehicle sales in the State, about four times higher than the national average of 1.2% A combination of Federal, State, and local utilities ZEV rebates can have a profound effect on reducing the cost of ZEVs and thereby increasing unit sales. Purchasers of BEVs in California can, for example, qualify for $2,500 rebates in the form of a tax credit if they earn no more than $150,000 in the tax year when the BEV was purchased. ($4,500 for individuals earning less than $36,420 with the income ceiling increasing based on household size.) A purchaser of a brand new BMW i3 BEV that is offered for sale for $40,000 will receive a Federal tax credit of $7,500, a State rebate between $2,500 or $4,500 (dependent on income thresholds), and an additional credit from their local utility company that typically is valued around $500 in bill credits or in free charging equipment. The combination of credits effectively reduces the price of the BMW i3 by $10,500 and by $12,500 for lower income individuals. There is plenty of opposition to the ZEV rebate program. Opponents view the rebates as a waste of the State’s treasury. They argue that the tax credits are unequally handed out in favor of the wealthy. Others believe that the rebates are not effectively reducing pollution because their electricity is substantially generated from coal-fired power plants. Those supporting ZEV rebates counter thatthe rebates were created to incentivize potential buyers to purchase clean air vehicles for the purpose of targeting green house gas emissions. Each clean air vehicle that is purchased replaces a vehicle that would be adding climate-changing CO2 gases into our atmosphere. Proponents argue that even though the distribution of rebates among income levels may not be equitable, at least something is being done to combat climate change. Revisions to the qualifying income schedule can be debated later. Additionally, the wealthiest citizens don’t qualify for a rebate, while those earning modest incomes receive an additional $2,000. Rebate supporters add that it is less important who receives the rebate as long as additional units of vehicles consuming fossil fuels are taken out of service. In response to the pollution created from fossil-fueled power plants that most ZEVs rely on, they point out that it is easier to regulate a few power plants than millions of gas and diesel powered vehicles and that renewable power is making up a greater proportion of our electrical consumption every year. The current ZEV rebate program has been remarkably effective. Approximately 48% of all ZEVs sold nationwide have been sold in California (EVadoption.com, 2018) and 285,000 rebates have been issued by the CVRP (cleanvehiclerebate.org, 2019). The estimated total of all ZEVs sold is California, including by individuals not qualifying for rebates, is estimated at between 315,000 (Newsom, 2017) to 512,000 (arstechnica.com, 2018). The total number of ZEVs sold is higher than the amount of rebates given out because many buyers were over the income ceiling. However, buyers over the income ceiling can still take advantage of other State incentive programs like the ability to travel in HOV lanes, a huge incentive in the traffic-choked State. Still, most ZEV purchasers are primarily motivated by the State rebate. According to an online survey available on the cleanvehiclerebate.org website, 74% of the 19,500 respondents cited the State rebate as an extremely important, or very important, factor in their decision to purchase their clean air vehicle. In particular, sales of BEVs are increasing at a faster rate than PHEVs due to advancements in battery technology that allows for them to travel at greater distances and new BEV models from manufacturers that are driving prices lower. But how effective have California’s rebates been in reducing climate-changing gases such as CO2? According to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the average automobile powered by fossil fuel ejects 4.6 metric tons of CO2annually into our atmosphere (EPA.gov, 2017). It’s not easy to measure the cumulative amount of CO2that has been prevented from entering our environment, but we can still try. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles such as the Toyota Prius should not be used in our calculations because they consume gas after their batteries lose their charge. Though PHEVs still contribute to CO2reduction, it is impossible to know the extent of their contribution. Therefore, we will consider only BEVs, the fastest growing segment of ZEVs and accounting for approximately 60% of all ZEV sales. A total of 168,135 BEV purchasers applied for rebates beginning January 2011 until September 30, 2018. By multiplying the number of rebates applied for each month, then assuming that each BEV is still in service and being driven, roughly 6.24 million metric tons of CO2 have been prevented from polluting the air we breathe. Clearly, both California ZEV rebates and incentives are an effective tool to drive ZEV sales and ought to be continued towards the goal of accelerating sales of clean air vehicles. The State’s Air Resources Board is now currently reviewing a proposal that would increase the State’s base ZEV subsidy from $2,500 up to $4,500 and change the income eligibility requirements so that the subsidies are widely available to low-income individuals. It is imperative that the subsidy amount is increased in order to put 5 million BEVs into service in California for the goal of decreasing green house gasemissions. California has shown the rest of the U.S. that meaningful rebates and incentives effectually reduce greenhouse gases. In the past, other states and our Country have followed California’s example of environmental leadership. You can help slow climate change through political participation. Remember, @Voting_Matters wants to remind you that voting matters on all voting matters! Vote for candidates like Governor Gavin Newsom, who supports reducing green house gases through an expansion of ZEV rebates and other incentives. In addition to voting, get active! Speak with other people about the importance of zero emission vehicles and their role in reducing green house gases. Send emails to your political Representatives asking them to support ZEV rebates for everyone. If you don’t know who your Representatives are, reply to me and I will send you their contact information. Please look for my upcoming blog where I will compare the effect of California’s program of ZEV rebates to other states that offer modest, or no rebates, for zero emission vehicle buyers. Humzah AhmadCA Politics The need for renewable energy is growing around the world, yet the the United States sits in the backseat on research and development. This is legally due to the United States’ large relaunch on non-renewable energy resources such as fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas. As the years move forward, many are slowly realizing that our reliance on these sources of energy will soon be met with nothing, as sources of non-renewable energy are expected to run out in the next half-century and new attempts of creating resources is destroying the planet as we know it. Contrarily, renewable energy is an infinite resource that can be found using water, wind, geothermal energy, the sun, etc. Developing these resources of energy would not only save money in the long run, they will save the planet we know and love.
Renewable energy often falls under the topic of environmental protection in a political atmosphere. These topics were largely discussed by both sides during the previous election, with Bernie Sanders arguing for its development and Donald Trump wanting to return to a large reliance on coal. Trump’s idea of returning to coal would soon go into play as he would nominate and confirm Scott Pruitt as the new EPA director during his administration, a former coal lobbyist. This action was extremely damaging to the EPA’s mission as well as the progress made in the US when it comes to driving away from a non-renewable energy dependence. Other remarks that falsified the existence of global warming were also made by Trump during his campaign trail and once he assumed office. Despite these bitter facts, California has assumed its position on top in terms of capacity of solar energy within the state (Feldmen, 2018). Furthermore, California, alongside twenty eight other states, has developed a plan for renewable energy growth in the next few years. For California, the goal is to receive at least 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2020, 40% by 2024, 50% by 2030, and 100% by 2045 (Domonoske, 2018). This plan was signed off by our previous governor, Jerry Brown, at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco in 2018. Moving forward, California will also be looking to implement zero-emission resources such as geothermal energy and hydro power. Returning to the effects and desperate need for advancements in this field, in both California and the nation as a whole, our local and state elections during the Midterms of 2018 have provided much more promise to already established needs of zero-emission and renewable resources in California. During the Midterms, Democrats nationwide proposed the Green New Deal, something that hit on a number of issue including renewable energy. This deal received both praise and criticism but its plan for the United States to lead the world in net zero-emission resources in the next few decades was especially relieving for many. With the introduction of this plan, renewable energy and zero-emission resources will indeed be a front-running issue during the 2020 election and voters nationwide should be especially concerned with its direction in the future. Contrarily, the US can also be a textbook example of why renewable energy and zero emission resources have taken so long to adapt into the nation. There is no denying that the United States spending habits are the main reason for our struggles to change drastically when needed. Our current energy plan is highly centralized and developed into a few locations and redeveloping an entirely new form of energy dependence nationwide would call for this to be undone and then redone. Meaning for us to switch over to wind, solar, geothermal, etc, etc, we would have to find new sites, dissemble the non-renewable energy sites, and install the infrastructure required for the renewable/zero-emission sites to work. Following this, one would also have to concern themselves with what is going to happen to the jobs in the market of non-renewable resources. This is something the presidential election of 2016 saw Trump heavily arguing for and making the main reason for his support of the coal industry. In the few years, the nation has seen an increase of opportunity in the renewable energy industry, which is a step in a direction that removes our dependence on coal and natural gas. Despite all these logistical reasons for why renewable energy has been the apex of the nations issues, the largest reason for our lack of progress is the relation between industry and politics. Over 37.5 billion dollars of subsidies, money given to industries by the government, is provided to the fossil fuel industry every year by the United States (Oil Change International, 2018). This has been the case for nearly half a century now and truly goes to show the grasp of the fossil fuel industry over the political atmosphere in regards to the climate crisis and the only way to combat this is to stop giving them money and instead charging them for the damage they are causing to the environment and longevity of our planet, also known as emissions taxing. "Whirlybird"CA Politics For years, California Mountain Lions have been an issue for anyone who lives in the mountains and foothills of California, especially if they have any type of livestock; cattle, sheep, horses, goats, and other such animals. Recently, more and more of the big cats have been moving lower due to increases in their overall population and new deer migration trails. On February 24th 2019, a large cat was seen and later removed from a neighborhood in North Natomas, which is very unusual for the generally solitary and elusive animals. Such sightings are occurring with a lot more frequency.
The number of attacks in California alone are also rising, including those that are fatal. 1889 had the first reported human death caused by a mountain lion with the next one occurring in 1909. The information on confirmed attacks and deaths isn’t solid, but there is a large change starting in 1991. After that year, the number of attacks begins rising as does the frequency of deaths. From 1991-2001, a total of six people, mostly children, were killed by mountain lions. In 1990, Proposition 117 passed which required at least $30,000 be spent to protect wildlife habitats and prohibited the sport hunting of mountain lions. With the growing risk of being attacked by cougars, I believe there needs to be a short hunting season for cougars with a small number of license being available to apply for. This would help keep cougars from getting too close to areas like Sacramento and other large cities. Under the current laws, a mountain lion can only be hunted if they have attacked and killed livestock and the owners have applied for a permit to hunt and kill the cat. Fish and Wildlife services also has to send someone out to confirm that the animals have been killed by a cougar and not by coyotes or even a bobcat. A small number of mountain lions are killed in this way a year, but it’s less than a hundred a year and has no impact on their growing population numbers, which is estimated to be between 4,000 and 6,000 in California alone. These types of massacres on livestock are actually very common for mountain lions. Most of the times, a big cat simply jumps into a pen, they can jump about 20 feet from a stand still straight up, and kill whatever they can get ahold of. Many of these types of massacres end with slaughtered livestock that the cats never bothered to eat, just kill and scatter body parts around. Since 1990’s Prop. 117, nothing has been done in any elections to change the laws regarding mountain lions in California. However, the Department of Fish and Wildlife have issued a “Human/Wildlife Interactions in California: Mountain Lion Depredation, Public Safety, and Animal Welfare” bulletin, which has three Amendments attached to it; one in 2007, then in 2013, and finally 2017. The most recent amendment in 2017 added and focused on issues involving ‘depredation,” which is the destruction and/or loss of property, mostly referring to incidents involving mountain lions killing livestock. The new amendment also focused on issues of mountain lion depredation in the Santa Ana and Santa Monica mountains due to recent land development in the areas. One of the amendment’s main focus’ is on the small pockets of mountain lion populations in Southern California that have a severe lack of genetic diversity since they are trapped in isolated regions due to freeways. The Department wants to make sure in these regions that new cougars with different genes are able to survive and bred in the regions to help prevent inbreeding. While this is great to animal rights activists and for conserving and protecting the longevity of species, it also has a down side. If a new cougar in the area is responsible for killing livestock, the livestock owners can apply for a permit to hunt and kill the cat in return. This causes issues for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, since they are expected by law to allow wronged livestock owners the permits, but they are also expected to protect the mountain lion for the benefit of the other cats in the region. The 2017 Amendment seeks to find a middle ground between the two contradictory laws since each incident is unique. The only part of the most recent election, and likely in the 2020 election as well, that has to do with hunting mountain lions or even spreading awareness of the issues apex predators can cause is likely to be found in any proposition or Act that has to do with environmental and habitat protection. Most people don’t see it as an issue or believe the attacks are tragic and unpreventable, but having a short hunting season could go a long way to helping the issue and bringing awareness to it as well. |
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|