Interesting questions raised tonight related to carbon tax, cap and trade, and the role of planners in the local, regional, and federal levels in the U.S. This is a very complex matter and this is my modest two cents for the discussion.
“It’s the economy, stupid” was the sentence that Clinton repeatedly addressed to Bush during 1992 campaign. Since Bill won the elections and positioned the U.S. in an ascent spiral movement, I must say that economics is certainly not only part of the problem but mainly the solution for reducing carbon emissions and promoting low-carbon economic systems. Cap and trade, for instance, has been the financial rationale behind the transformation of methane cumulative trash into energy generator and profitable landfills in developing countries.
In our brief and productive group discussion, Michele shared her surprise on how expensive is adopting environmentally-minded behavior during “No Impact Week”. Indeed, organics are not cheap. Neither are the prices of certified green products for furniture, vehicles, and houses. Green looks more like gold, actually. The way they are marketed today make them widely perceived more like a luxurious trendy for rich pockets -- or a non-optional for the extremely disadvantaged living in marginalized areas. In addition, Jacqueline and Brinton mentioned how cheap products are at Wal-Mart and thus merchandise prices should be increased by adding carbon taxes on individual consumption and corporative economic chains. This is believed to change behavior. Spending more dollars do make us think twice before buying something; however, no one can resist to incentives like free treats at CostCo.
No one wants to pay a little more but everyone expects to earn -- a lot more.
Incentives do just that. Subsidies for the ones buying electric cars are a great idea even though may lead to economic disruptions in the long-term. Tax rebates for householders installing photovoltaic panels are another positive fiscal initiative. These two mechanisms promise to change how the Japanese ride cars and Hawaii’s residents consume electricity by 2050. The solution, therefore, seems to be right in front of our noses. We basically need to understand how people make decisions and how these decisions can be channeled for something environmentally and socially responsible.
The U.S. is the country where corporations call the shots. Its citizens have a lot to thank for. The high rates of living standards of over three hundred million people have only been achieved because policymakers here have historically partnered with local corporations helping them become global. By advocating “free market” overseas and ingeniously operating monopolies within its borders local leaders have created the most resilient economy in the twentieth century and still in this one. Ask a Chinese tycoon what currency he buys during financial crises. It is certainly not the overregulatedEuro, let alone the Yuan. In a country where citizens have a strong sense of rights and duties, as Tocqueville pointed out in the first half of the 19thcentury, this is an economic model that the world should learn from its failures to sharpen their our models, even if they go against the State Department’s powerful interests -- and bombs.
The role of the United States is of a leader. I am saying so on behalf of other countries’ welfare. No one consumes more than a U.S. average citizen. Storage stores are a phenomenal business here even in a limited space and expensive land like the Hawaiian islands. The U.S. national leaders should continue promoting consumerism but not only opening markets and finding low cost suppliers for its companies -- after all, the world will not react warmly if it is forced to become A-American Self-Storages. If the U.S. citizens are really concerned about their local issues -- like obesity -- and global problems -- like the underpaid and over-exploited Chinese manual labor and the impact of a beautiful iMac on public health --, they should advocate in unison on Wall Street as well as at other decision-making locations fiscal and monitoring mechanisms enforced by federal and state laws against U.S. companies violating human rights inside and outside their borders. By doing so, the U.S. voters would trigger a direct shift within its borders and foster indirect changes in countries restraining citizens from basic living conditions at the same time as it establishes a competitive market where prices do not necessarily go sky-high. In other words, it is still possible to enjoy an iPhone and go to bed in peace knowing that others are taking a bit of your Apple.
In this context, the role of planners is more than mediating conflicting interests and mobilizing stakeholders. Planners must first be able to collect various data and influence decision-making processes by designing spaces where private interests coexist with public properties. An example is “tax free zones”. By providing cutting-edge infrastructure and creating areas where incentives reduce deadweight losses, planners implement conditions for a growing number of white and blue collar positions while abiding by regulations that only permit the import and export of environmentally-certified or socially-responsible products. By leveling the playing field, therefore, planners potentially turn urban areas in the U.S. into thousand of Masdar Cities and indirectly influence the appearance of many others worldwide -- if we totally ignore what politics is about, but this is another story.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário