On to Proposition 3! In summary, Proposition 3 will require that 25% of Michigan's electricity be generated by renewable sources, that is wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power. Furthermore, and here's where things get tricky, the proposal limits the increase in utility prices in order to achieve this goal to 1% per year. It also makes some provisions for extending the deadline so as to not exceed aforementioned price increase limit and requires the legislature to support using Michigan products and labor to meet this goal. Although this is all kind of confusing, I am inclined to go with YES on Proposition 3.
I am, in general, in support of renewable energy. Michigan enacted a law in 2008 requiring 10% renewable energy by 2015, while Proposition 3 does more than double the required amount of renewable energy, it also more than doubles the time to achieve the goal. Unfortunately, I could not easily find information as to how well utility companies are progressing toward the current goal, however, DTE Energy reports that they are doing great, and produced 5% of their energy through renewable methods in 2011. After all, who doesn't trust what giant utility companies have to say about themselves?
My biggest problem with Proposition 3 is that it is a constitutional amendment rather than an attempt to write something into law. Apparently if you try to get something put into law through Michigan's initiative process it goes to the Legislature first, then if they fail to act on it it goes on the ballot. Although Constitutional amendments have a higher signature requirement to get on the ballot, they bypass the Legislature entirely and go directly into law. Which is probably why all the propositions on this years ballot, with the sole exception of Proposition 1 to overturn previously enacted legislation, are Constitutional amendments. Although it makes sense why campaigners are doing it this way, I don't think this is something that really belongs in a state's Constitution. Furthermore, it would be nice for this issue to come up when we have a better idea how 10% in 2015 is going.
Finally, I feel a little awkward about deciding Michigan's fate until 2025, when I am unlikely to remain in the state for that long. However, I think it is a good idea, albeit perhaps a bit before its time, so I feel like supporting it, after all, who knows if it would be re-proposed in 2015 if it fails now. So a tentative yes on Proposition 3.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Cycle of Life
While in Arizona, my sister graciously let me borrow her book, enabling me to avoid finishing my own before the plane ride to Oregon. She is reading Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. Unfortunately it is less a book about history, something which I find quite interesting, and more a book about teaching history, something which I find less interesting, but it still had nuggets of interest which kept me reading through the first half of the book. And, as is my wont, I got to thinking.
One of the author's, James Loewen, theses is that history is edited to portray advances through time as an inexorable development. Supporting this point he mentions the suppression of oceanic crossings prior to Columbus, which would indicate that reaching the "New" World was, in fact, old news. He also argues that portrayals of Native Americans as primitive peoples stems from urge to portray history as directed toward continual advancement, otherwise known as a teleological interpretation of history.
If the native peoples were uncivilized, then their eradication and assimilation into European culture can be explained as progress towards increasingly civilized society. However, if there were already societies as complex and, in some ways, more advanced than European societies then one runs into dual problems of justification. Without appealing to a notion of "advancement," how can one justify the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of Europeans, and how valid is the notion of "advancement"?
It is interesting to note that one can examine these questions separately. Consider the "noble savage" narrative, whose attraction we can observe in the popularity of the movie Avatar, the one about the blue Indians, not the one about the final airbender. Although such interpretations condemn European aggression, they still portray Europeans as more technologically advanced. This seems to send the message that European victory was barbaric and unjustified, but technically predetermined, still in keeping with a teleological interpretation of history.
So then, one might ask how accurate a linear perception of human achievement truly is. Arguing against this notion are things like the pre-Columbian landings which did not lead to colonization, indicating that some factor other than technical know-how spurred European aggression in the late 1400's. One might also remark on the tragic losses of knowledge and local "dark ages" which seem to counter-indicate a linear growth of human civilization. One might remark how common life remained for the most part unchanging over vast stretches of human history.
The modern person has strong motivation to interpret history as linear advancement, not only are we the, current, culmination of said advance, we are always being told of steadily advancing technology. However, one might give some consideration to how true this steady advance is. Certainly advertising agencies have motivation to convince us that technology is improving, whether or not it is even changing. Take, for example, the e-Reader; whenever airlines announce that all portable devices, readers, et al. need to be shut off, I simply smile into my book and continue reading. While an e-Reader is certainly a "high-tech" (notice the way that term alone implies the continual improvement of technology) form of book, one can certainly ask if it is superior. It's very electronic nature places limitations on its usage, on planes, in places without electricity, that do not constrain books. Furthermore, producing e-Readers is more resource and technique intensive than producing printed books. The first first point leads one to question whether the e-Reader is actually technology worse suited to modern realities than the printed book. The second raises issues of privilege, what societies can produce e-Readers and which people can employ them.
Another interesting place to consider "progress" is computer/video games. Although graphics have gotten "better" without question, where "better" simply means that they have become more accurate portrayals of what we actually perceive and one lesson we may learn from art is that more accurate portrayals aren't necessarily better, one can question whether games themselves are improving. Insofar as games are intended to provide an alternate reality plagued with problems possessing obvious solutions into which we may escape to avoid dealing with the problems without obvious solutions plaguing our current reality, I suppose better graphics do lead to a better game. However, if one takes the somewhat less cynical view that games are intended to provide fun, I would like to see evidence as to improvement in current games. Of course, since new games need to be bought, and "better" graphics require "better" hardware to be purchased, there is a large incentive for new games to be touted as ever improving, so we may find older games disappointing now, the right question to ask is whether we were having any less fun when they were "cutting edge" (again implying continual advancement) than we are now with current new releases. And, of course, the continual consumption of new games and hardware presents the same resource and technique requirement questions as the e-Reader.
I am not pretending to present answers in this post. I just wish to highlight the, I believe, interesting question of whether our modern lifestyle does constitute an actual improvement over historical lifestyles and, if so, for what reasons? Furthermore, if one discards the notion of historical advancement then practices and beliefs from historical societies become sources for suggestions of ways we could improve our current society back to lost standards, a curious notion for a progressive like me to be espousing, I know.
One of the author's, James Loewen, theses is that history is edited to portray advances through time as an inexorable development. Supporting this point he mentions the suppression of oceanic crossings prior to Columbus, which would indicate that reaching the "New" World was, in fact, old news. He also argues that portrayals of Native Americans as primitive peoples stems from urge to portray history as directed toward continual advancement, otherwise known as a teleological interpretation of history.
If the native peoples were uncivilized, then their eradication and assimilation into European culture can be explained as progress towards increasingly civilized society. However, if there were already societies as complex and, in some ways, more advanced than European societies then one runs into dual problems of justification. Without appealing to a notion of "advancement," how can one justify the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of Europeans, and how valid is the notion of "advancement"?
It is interesting to note that one can examine these questions separately. Consider the "noble savage" narrative, whose attraction we can observe in the popularity of the movie Avatar, the one about the blue Indians, not the one about the final airbender. Although such interpretations condemn European aggression, they still portray Europeans as more technologically advanced. This seems to send the message that European victory was barbaric and unjustified, but technically predetermined, still in keeping with a teleological interpretation of history.
So then, one might ask how accurate a linear perception of human achievement truly is. Arguing against this notion are things like the pre-Columbian landings which did not lead to colonization, indicating that some factor other than technical know-how spurred European aggression in the late 1400's. One might also remark on the tragic losses of knowledge and local "dark ages" which seem to counter-indicate a linear growth of human civilization. One might remark how common life remained for the most part unchanging over vast stretches of human history.
The modern person has strong motivation to interpret history as linear advancement, not only are we the, current, culmination of said advance, we are always being told of steadily advancing technology. However, one might give some consideration to how true this steady advance is. Certainly advertising agencies have motivation to convince us that technology is improving, whether or not it is even changing. Take, for example, the e-Reader; whenever airlines announce that all portable devices, readers, et al. need to be shut off, I simply smile into my book and continue reading. While an e-Reader is certainly a "high-tech" (notice the way that term alone implies the continual improvement of technology) form of book, one can certainly ask if it is superior. It's very electronic nature places limitations on its usage, on planes, in places without electricity, that do not constrain books. Furthermore, producing e-Readers is more resource and technique intensive than producing printed books. The first first point leads one to question whether the e-Reader is actually technology worse suited to modern realities than the printed book. The second raises issues of privilege, what societies can produce e-Readers and which people can employ them.
Another interesting place to consider "progress" is computer/video games. Although graphics have gotten "better" without question, where "better" simply means that they have become more accurate portrayals of what we actually perceive and one lesson we may learn from art is that more accurate portrayals aren't necessarily better, one can question whether games themselves are improving. Insofar as games are intended to provide an alternate reality plagued with problems possessing obvious solutions into which we may escape to avoid dealing with the problems without obvious solutions plaguing our current reality, I suppose better graphics do lead to a better game. However, if one takes the somewhat less cynical view that games are intended to provide fun, I would like to see evidence as to improvement in current games. Of course, since new games need to be bought, and "better" graphics require "better" hardware to be purchased, there is a large incentive for new games to be touted as ever improving, so we may find older games disappointing now, the right question to ask is whether we were having any less fun when they were "cutting edge" (again implying continual advancement) than we are now with current new releases. And, of course, the continual consumption of new games and hardware presents the same resource and technique requirement questions as the e-Reader.
I am not pretending to present answers in this post. I just wish to highlight the, I believe, interesting question of whether our modern lifestyle does constitute an actual improvement over historical lifestyles and, if so, for what reasons? Furthermore, if one discards the notion of historical advancement then practices and beliefs from historical societies become sources for suggestions of ways we could improve our current society back to lost standards, a curious notion for a progressive like me to be espousing, I know.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Car-less, Car-less Life
It is a matter of some personal pride that I have, in my nigh unto eight years off on my own, only driven a car for one summer in order to get to and from work each day. Of course, I was at my parents' home that summer, and driving their car, so it is of some debate how "on my own," I was at that point. I do, however, consider my choice to live car-less to be a good one personally, morally, and environmentally.
I ought not condemn those who make other choices, for it is by their generous sufferance that my lifestyle choice becomes easier. While I receive rides rather infrequently in Michigan, if the possibility of such rides were non-existent, the realm of possibilities for my life would become much smaller. It is not necessary that I avail myself of these potential rides in order to benefit, their very feasibility keeps me from feeling trapped in East Lansing. Of course, when I am in Oregon I receive quite a few generous rides.
My other main mode of vehicular transportation is the bus. In a way, this post is inspired by my sister's on her privilege at being a bus passenger. I must admit that I am a far less frequent passenger upon the bus than I have been in the past, and I am proud of this. But the reason that I am proud is not out of disdain for the bus system, rather I am glad that I am being active and turning unnecessary bus trips into solid walks.
In fact, you might be surprised at just how effective walking can be, if you have no need to transport a large volume or mass of goods. I actually took my first bus ride of the semester on Saturday, having already walked the 4 miles to Meijer (a big store) I decided a return trip via bus was in order, especially considering my purchase of a vacuum cleaner. Before that my previous two bus trips were from and to the airport in Detroit, and according to my bus ticket, prior to that I took a couple of rides on December 1st, for reasons unremembered to me, but likely involving my desire to avoid the elements.
In addition to feelings of self-efficacy and independence that my transportation habits engender in me, I obtain serious financial benefits. Last time I drove I was a teenage male and, consequentially, my insurance rates were awful. However, for a full year of local bus rides and two round trips to the airport I paid about $240 a year. Even though I am older and, presumably, more responsible now, I cannot imagine that the costs associated with purchasing, maintaining, fueling, and insuring a vehicle for a year would come close to being that low. Heck, even if there were not upkeep costs associated with the car, one would need to get a car for $2,400 and drive it for ten years to match my level of investment in transportation.
The picture becomes even rosier once I start walking most places. Since my last unlimited bus pass ran out at the beginning of July, I have spent less than $20 on local bus rides. This puts me at a projection of approximately $140 spent this year on Michigan transportation. That is about an extra 25 used books that I get to pocket (used books being, of course, the currency in any civilized society).
This is not to advocate that everyone become a radical pedestrian, as I like to think of myself. Not only do I benefit from the car ownership of my friends, but I also realize that there are some lifestyles in which auto ownership becomes a necessity. Furthermore, my ability to blithely walk to my destination at all hours of the day or, for the most part, night is an expression of my dual privileges of being male (thus possessing for the most part a feeling of physical safety) and somewhat indifferent to the weather (thus possessing for the most part an ability to wander around in a Michigan winter). I do hope to inspire consideration of the alternatives, while a car may be a necessity in one's life, that does not make it a necessity for every individual trip one makes. I do acknowledge that possessing a car would probably make it very tempting to use when I was running late or bound for a destination more than a couple of miles away, as possessing an unlimited bus pass made the bus highly attractive, but I assure you that there are valuable benefits to the lifestyle of a modest pedestrian.
I certainly do not deny the possibility that I shall need, or even just seriously desire, a car in the future and end up purchasing one. In fact, those Chevy Volts and Nissan Leafs (Leaves?) look mighty tempting for when I go out into the real world and acquire a terrifyingly disposable income. But, I do hope that I remember the lessons of moderation and self-reliance that I have learned as a radical pedestrian.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Simply Living
For those of you unfamiliar with my sister's blog, you really should be there, she has much more profound things to say. Recently she has been attempting to live in a very sustainable manner, which she calls "living simply," for religious and pragmatic reasons. Her first post of the New Year is a simple piece on what she appreciates about living simply. For those of you who are curious, previous posts provide additional information about specific changes that she has made, and there is a tasty cookie recipe as well, bonus!
I have been wanting to write something inspirational to kick off the new year, but have not had any idea what to say to that effect. Thus, I direct you to my sister's blog, which I find much more inspiring, and shall write a little in response.
While visiting Oregon, I have been staying with my sister, so I have had a fair bit of immersion into her simpler living. Personally, my lifestyle tends towards the simplistic; most of that is intended to keep my stress at manageable levels rather than out of altruistic motives, and I tend to draw the line at making my life more complicated in an attempt to simplify it, as attempting to bake my own bread seems like it would inevitably do. That said, I can vouch that simple living is not an unpleasant experience at all.
For myself however, I shall concentrate on simply living. My sister sometimes seems more mature than I, and, in this case, I think that she has figured out what she wants out of life a bit quicker than I. This facilitates tweaks, albeit drastic, time consuming, and impressive, to lifestyle. Fortunately, although I am still searching for something that feels right, there are good times along the way. So, may your year be simple and contain the occasional moment of joy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)