Diversity is not a word associated with the BYU student demographic. It is true that we have students from numerous countries. It is also true that the majority of BYU students have either spent significant amounts of time in foreign countries or speak a second language. Although these experiences and associations might enrich us, we are anything but diverse. This is blatantly apparent in our political views.

In the words of Stephen Colbert, we have republicans and staunch republicans. The BYU Democrats Club has a small following of democratic students who band together against the overwhelming wave of conservatism at BYU. This last statement may have made you uncomfortable. You are thinking, “What is wrong with conservatism?” There would be a similar problem if it was an overwhelming wave of liberalism. With only one party represented, beneficial ideas that could have come as a result of bipartisan dialogue are smothered.

I served my mission in India and met people with very different viewpoints. I once told a Sikh man that resurrection was a very logical doctrine. He in turn told me that reincarnation was more logical then resurrection. It was at that point that I realized that logic had nothing to do with it. Resurrection seemed logical to me because I had grown up with the idea. I am not advocating reincarnation but am pointing out how other people’s views seem equally as logical to them as ours do to us. Sometimes we let our background influence ideas without realizing the merits of an opposing view.

Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encourages its members to be involved in the political process, it is officially politically neutral.  You might not know that going to Brigham Young University.

According to state party records, Republican professors outnumber Democratic professors 10 to 1.

"One of the most troubling elements ... is the growing Mormon tendency to find absolute or at least superior, even divine, truth in the Republican Party platform," Eugene England, a professor of English and registered Republican said in a 1998 Daily Universe article.  "Political parties do not have truth -- they have perspectives," he added.

Despite this, all too often, professors and students at BYU speak as if the Republican party is the "true" party.  They point to America's declining morals and blame it on liberals, despite the fact that a Republican has been president 20 of the past 30 years and despite the fact that Barack Obama's views on such controversial topics as gay marriage and abortion mirror that of the church's.

Before election time each year, this official church statement is read over each pulpit which "affirms [the Church's] neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates." Importantly, it also stresses that, "principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties."   This goes to show that the church encourages us to look at both sides of the issue and vote based on which one most closely follows what we believe.

Round two of the JB’s.

Now that we have looked into some of their excessive strengths, let’s take a gander at their weaknesses: Both men have obvious weaknesses that dramatically affect them. Bond’s notorious weaknesses are found in the lifestyle of the sixties in drinking, gambling, and women. His reckless habits often lead him to trouble and while not explored on screen, we all know the consequences of such carelessness: beer belly, debt, and illegitimate babies. I feel that his weaknesses are used as an accent to his coolness in that he’s so debonair that he’s above the real consequences of such behavior.
Bourne’s weakness, by comparison, is his driving force. He’s not emotionally stable. After suffering a couple of bullets shots and nearly drowning, he suffers from amnesia. Wired has to say, “Often confused by clouded memories and depressed, Bourne seems like a self-absorbed hero. He often fights just for himself — to restore his own memory and past. There is rarely a greater call to duty in his hunt for those who made him what he is. It’s not the great desire of a true hero to be left alone, but that seems to be Bourne’s greatest wish.” His weakness, as Wired describes it, is that he’s only focused on himself and whatever will help him regain his memory.
So, which one has the lesser evil? While Bond’s weaknesses don’t have such a dramatic effect as that of Bourne’s I still contest that Bourne wins this one. Bourne’s weakness is what drives him. It is his power and motivator to find answers and while he isn’t fighting world-renowned bad guys like Bond, he fights the corruption within the good guys.
Personal characteristics aside, what about the actual films centered on these super-spies? The all-knowing Wikipedia enlightens us. With an incredible twenty-two films (and counting) to the James Bond legacy and seven separate actors portraying Mr. Bond, the 007 films have made quite the impression on history. Starting in 1962 with Sean Connery as James Bond in Dr. No, and most recently in 2008 with Daniel Craig as Bond in Quantum of Solace, the Bond films have always attracted large audiences. With a whooping total of $11,686,214,000 in inflation-adjusted total box office revenues, it has been one of the most successful movie franchises ever.
Bourne, being a significantly shorter series, the first installment, The Bourne Identity, starring Matt Damon was released in 2002, and third, The Bourne Ultimatum, was released in 2007. Overall, the three films grossed $945,600,303.

To be continued…

Okay, so I feel like I’m just spewing off facts about the movies…I’m working to stick-ify it

Oil and Joseph of Egypt

My goal in this post is to try out some new ideas to make my paper sticky. I am going to write things out just for the exercise of going through it and let anyone who reads comment on its effectiveness.

My basic argument is very simple. If America wants to be truly independent and prepared for the future of the energy market then it needs to stop drilling its oil and save it. If we are worried about running out of oil in the future and being left with nothing to provide energy then we should save the billions of barrels of oil stored beneath American lands.

My core is that true oil independence comes when we have plenty of it stored for when an energy crisis does come. This is akin to the story of Joseph who was sold into Egypt (but not his coat of many colors). Joseph interpreted one of the dreams of pharaoh to mean that Egypt would have seven years of plenty and then seven years of famine. Instead of having seven years of very competitive business, Joseph led Egypt in saving vast amounts of food for the upcoming famine. When the famine came and the rest of the world was crippled by starvation, Egypt was strong and prosperous. Their food stores not only gave them stability but an incredibly strong economic and political upper hand with all of their neighbors. With ever-shrinking estimates of how long the world’s oil reserves will last, America will be the strongest if it would save this resource for the coming oil famine.

There is always an outcry among the American population, the press, and politicians who claim that America is too dependent on foreign sources of oil. They believe that by allowing our oil to be imported that we are subject to the whims of foreign oil exporters. What they forget is that foreign oil exporters need and want business. It is true that they might be able to withhold oil for a while but in the end they cannot function without us. They need business and there is no place in the world like America for oil consumption.

Another worry about buying oil from foreign markets is that market prices are too unstable and expensive. A basic economics explanation clarifies the absurdity of this worry. A higher demand for a product will lead to a more expensive price. If demand continues to rise then the price will also rise. If demand falls, so will the price. In effect, we, the consumers, actually control the market prices. If an oil supplier sets their prices too high then people will not buy as much and prices will have to fall for the producer to make profit.

Here are some attempts at stick analogies/stories that might help:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, oil currently supplies 40% of our total energy needs and 99% of the energy we use in our cars and trucks. In essence, every boat, car, truck, plane that you have ever seen would be nothing more than a useless hunk of metal without oil.

Exhausting America’s oil supplies is like forcing us to hand over our driver’s license and car keys. Without this oil, we cannot function.

True dependence on foreign oil is not having our own reserves to fall back on. It is like hoping to one day retire but without having ever saved any money.

Benedict Arnold and how we are betraying ourselves.

The Future of the Record Industry

     iTunes recently upped the price for a single song, making the biggest hits $1.29 instead of 99 cents. While that 30 cent raise will eventually leave a dent in your wallet, it's still a deal compared to what one Boston University student had to pay. Joel Tenenbaum, a postdoctoral student at BU, had to pay a whopping $22,500 a song after being found guilty of illegally downloading and distributing 24 copyrighted songs. In retrospect, I'm sure Tenenbaum would gladly have forked over $30 for those same songs instead of becoming the target of a record industry lawsuit.

     The Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA, is on a mission to stamp out online music piracy. As album sales continue to tumble and the record industry faces a massive loss in revenue year after year, this is their game plan.  It seems to make sense; illegal downloading has coincided with dwindling album sales, so sue the downloaders and start making money again.  The only problem is, it doesn't work.

     It all began in 1999 when Shawn Fanning, a Northeastern University student created a peer-to-peer file sharing network that allowed Internet users to download and distribute music and other media files easier than ever before, and for free.  Trouble emerged in 2000 as acts such as Metallica, Dr. Dre, and Madonna filed lawsuits after their music leaked online.  It did little to slow Napster's massive popularity and growth.  In February 2001, Napster was reported to have 26.4 million users.

     By July 2001, Napster was shut down.  In its place, other illegal downloading sites sprung up across the web.  For the record industry, it was all downhill from there.  1999 was the highest profile year for the industry, with $14.6 billion made.  By 2009, those figures were down to $6.3 billion with no signs of getting any better.

     Despite the dwindling revenue, there was a silver lining to the dark cloud of online piracy.  British alternative band Radiohead demonstrated this in late 2000 when they released their first No. 1 album, Kid A.  Kid A wasn't a particularly commercial album, in fact, no music videos were made for it, and no singles were released from it.  The band actually credited their album's success to the buzz it received after leaking online three months before its release.

     "Most of us really are criminals. Almost everybody owns a little stolen music," said Lev Grossman in a Time magazine article.  "But a little piracy can be a good thing. Sure, O.K., I ripped the audio of the Shins' Phantom Limb off a YouTube video. But on the strength of that minor copyright atrocity, I legally bought two complete Shins albums and shelled out for a Shins concert. The legit market feeds off the black market. Music execs just need to figure out how to live with that."

     The record industry has a point - illegal downloading is illegal - there is no way around that.  Stubbornly suing pirates however, doesn't solve the problem.  Rather than attempting to irradiate illegal downloading,  they need to find a new business model that works in the Internet age.

http://www.baldguyweb.com/blog/2010/02/compensating_musicians_and_rec.php

A little more interesting

There are many questions that have plagues mankind for centuries. Questions that inspire thought, that stimulate conversation, that provoke philosophical debate, they can even cause quite the controversy. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Divine creation, or the big bang theory? Even Coke or Pepsi causes quite the stir. I wish to address one of the most divisive questions ever to be posed to man and the answer might not be a clean cut one. Bourne or Bond?
These two super-spies are infamous and legendary. Both have incredible strengths, both also have weaknesses. Which, after all is weighed and compared, will reign high king for his stunner abilities and off the charts coolness? It’s gotta be Bourne.
The notorious JB’s (James Bond, Jason Bourne) need to be examined side-by-side in order to see the how easily Bourne tips the scale in his favor. Let’s first examine sheer strength. Sure, Bond can carry his own in a scuffle between the 007 and whomever his nemesis of the film is, but he depends too heavily upon his weapons. Brian Tallerico, a journalist concedes “Daniel Craig proved that Bond could be a physical force as much as an expert marksman,” but then he continues to say, “but there's a history of Bonds that we think we could take. Timothy Dalton? Bourne would need one chop move to the neck to take that punk down. Roger Moore? Don't get us started. Even Brosnan would be Bourne toast. There's a reason that all the Bonds need a cadre of weapons for every assignment.” Bond relies too heavily on technologu, that if he were to find himself without, he would also find himself highly useless. Bourne, on the other hand, needs only just that—his hands. His greatest weapons are the parts of his body. In fact, the technology just slows him down! So, Bourne one, Bond nothing.
Next: weapons. Moviefone compared the two and had to say “Bond relies on a wide array of tech gadgets -- invisible cars, force-field-producing watches -- to combat his foes. Bourne prefers to use whichever household items are nearest -- magazines, books, pens… to bludgeon his attackers into submission.” While Bond does have cooler cars and gadgets, Bourne makes use of EVERYTHING to manipulate his opponent. Bond just takes what someone else, the ingenious “Q”, gives him and uses it and let’s face it, most of Bond’s gadgets don’t even exist. Bourne though, uses whatever he has available, assembles in a split second as he is on the move and still completely renders his opponent unconscious. He doesn’t need invisible cars or force-fields, he can achieve the same means with a fan, a flashlight, and a closed door. Bourne two, Bond zip.
While this is only a tasty morsel of the epic battle of the spies, more to come includes dabbles in comparisons on morals, storylines, characters, acting, and maybe even attractiveness. We’ll see!


PS-this is awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGltN2llcuw&feature=related

For some reason the hyperlinks weren't working for me...I have them in the real copy of the draft, I promise!

The New Topic--Oil

Drilling any of America’s oil—whether from the frozen tundra of Alaska, the black gold of Texas, or the watery depths of American coasts—is destructive to the future stability of America. I do not mean environmentally damaging because that is an entirely different debate. What I am talking about is the future economic, strength of America being at risk as a result of oil drilling.

Since oil drilling began, it has been apparent that oil wells do not last forever. Eventually, the oil wells will dry up and we will have to turn to an alternate source of energy not only in the United States but also across the world. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, oil currently supplies 40% of our total energy needs and 99% of the energy we use in our cars and trucks. This takes on new meaning when you realize that every car on the road would be completely useless without oil. Beyond the effect that it would have on your daily life, oil is crucial to our military. Our advanced weaponry and equipment would all be totally useless without oil. America would stand vulnerable before any other country that had oil to fuel its attack

The estimates for how long various oil reserves will last are unclear but all agree on one thing: all oil reserves will eventually dry up. Saudi Arabia has the largest portion—19.5%--of the world’s oil reserves hidden under its sands. Canada comes in second at 13.5% followed by Iran, Iraq, and the UAE with 9.9%, 8.3%, and 7.2% respectively. What this means for the US is that 4 of the 5 biggest oil reserves in the US come from countries who are not concerned with the well being of America. Canada, as a result of its proximity to the US, can be considered a trusted ally and are of no cause for concern. Upon examining these 5 countries we can see that the oil in these countries will not last much longer than 100 years. When the oil is gone we will all be on our hands and knees, crippled by the lack of oil.

The American government is aware of the problems that a disruption in the supply of oil could cause to its citizens and its military. In response to this, it has set up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. This reserve can hold 727 barrels of oil or, in other words, is the largest oil reserve in the world. In addition to these reserve, there is a separate reserve that can be used for heating oil in the North Eastern region of America. Accord to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, America uses almost 20 million barrels of oil per day. That means that our nations reserve would last us just over a month and probably less if there was a sudden military crisis.

What we often forget is that the US has over 20 billion barrels of untapped oil in the ground. This is enough oil to supply the US for 8 years. If we stop drilling our oil we would have reserves to protect ourselves. We would have oil when all other sources dry up. Some people say that America is dependent on foreign oil sources. This is only true if it is our only source of oil. If we were to save our oil in reserve, we would not be dependent on foreign oil but would, in fact, be more independent from foreign oil in the future.

Sticky Hunter Paper Edited A 'Lil Bit

Imagine studying for a science test using an outdated textbook with old theories and information that has been proven false. No matter how hard you studied, it wouldn’t help you on the test. It might actually make your score worse!
The United States is facing a major science test of its own, one that it cannot afford to fail. It’s a test on how the country will tackle the looming pollution problem. A lot of different ideas on how to slow pollution and its effects on our environment have been brought up, but will they really work?
Cap and trade is one such proposed solution to the pollution problem. The idea is that the government sets a limit, or cap, on how much emissions are allowed to be released every year. Organizations are then given permits by the government allowing them to pollute. Over time, the cap is reset lower forcing organizations to pollute less. If organizations are able to reduce their emissions, they can trade their permits to other organizations for money. Cap and trade has support because it is viewed as a way to cut down on pollution and allow organizations to profit from being environmentally friendly.
Despite the good intentions of cap and trade, it’s actually been proven to increase emissions! Just like cramming for a science test with an outdated textbook, no matter how hard we try, it’s just not going to work.
Cap and trade was first implemented on a large scale in Europe in 2005. After three years, emissions actually rose by almost two percent. During that same time, emission in the United States rose, but it was small – a fraction of a percent. If emission in Europe rose more than double than they did in the United States with legislation trying to combat it, why would we want to try it out?
To understand why cap and trade doesn’t work, one must understand why it backfired in Europe. A major reason it didn’t work was the misuses and abuses in the system.
Billionaire and investor George Soros said that the cap and trade system “can be gamed; that’s why financial types like me like it – because there are financial opportunities”.
The initial step of setting the cap is problematic because organizations have billions of dollars at stake. Energy is a big money business and organizations will spend millions of dollars lobbying and persuading government officials to ensure the cap as well as the terms of the legislation benefit them. This is what happened in Europe.
Some companies that have become notorious for exploiting financial opportunities such as Enron and Goldman Sachs, were early supporters of cap and trade. Goldman Sachs in particular saw cap and trade as an enormous opportunity to profit from. President Obama conservatively estimates the legislation to create a $646 billion market for carbon credits that will only go up in price as they become more and more of a commodity, a commodity that organizations like Goldman Sachs would love to get their hands on.
After the cap was set too high in Europe, the market was awash in permits. The organizations that had historically polluted the most received the most permits; they were basically rewarded for polluting. Many organizations even got free permits because they were based on predictions of future emissions levels.
To make matters worse, organizations could look for the financial opportunities and loopholes to make more money while failing to reduce emissions. That happened in Malaysia where the Sinar Mas corporation cut down forests. Forests are brakes on climate change, taking in carbon dioxide. The company then took the razed land and planted palm oil trees. Although the trees didn’t make up for the ecological damage the company caused, they earned permits and was able to pollute more than the cap should have let them.
Organizations could also exaggerate how much carbon they emitted or were planning to emit. By embellishing the numbers, they are able to claim they are lowering their emissions without actually doing anything and, in the process, earn more permits.
Some might argue that the problems encountered in Europe don’t necessarily have to happen in the United States. That is true, but it disregards the fact that there aren’t many examples of legislation being passed that manages to plug all the loopholes; it just doesn’t happen.
Even in the best of circumstances, it’s likely that cap and trade would do little to combat pollution. Many scientists say that cap and trade might inch the global climate down a fraction of a degree over several decades. Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger says that cap and trade would reduce the earth's future temperature by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Considering the massive economic damage that many predict would befall the United States for adopting the legislation, is it worth less than a degree change in the global temperature over the course of a century? That fails to take into account developing nations which are expected to contribute extraordinarily to global emissions levels. China, for example, uses coal for 70 percent of its energy needs, needs that will only continue to grow as it becomes more industrialized. Even if the United States managed to find a way to make cap and trade work, the miniscule gains would be overshadowed by emissions from other nations.
Cap and trade is plagued with too many problems. The Washington Post said, “Cap-and-trade regimes have advantages…but they are complex and vulnerable to lobbying and special pleading, and they do not guarantee success.”
A solution to our global pollution problem must be found, but cap and trade is not the way. No matter how hard we try, making cap and trade work is like studying from an outdated textbook. The United States needs to look at new ideas and plans and find a better solution. The solution is finding alternate sources of energy. Although supporters of cap and trade will argue that the pressure of a lowering cap will force organizations to seek alternative sources of energy, it's unlikely that a centrally planned, government run scenario will do that. It will take a free market and technological innovation to reach that goal.

Cap and trade take 93

I am sick of working on this for right now, so here's a rough work in progress...

Congratulations! You may have just won a vacation! No work, just relaxing and taking it easy with the family. What could be more ideal? Little did the government know that by signing this cap and trade bill into effect, they would also be sending millions of people on vacation!
Now at this moment, you may be asking yourself, “How do I know if I’m one of the lucky ones to have earned a vacation?!” Well, here’s how you can tell: do you work for a manufacturing company? Do you work in a coal mine? Do you work at any company that will be required to dramatically cut down emissions? If you have answered yes to any of the previous questions, you have pretty much guaranteed yourself a spot in the pool of the soon to be unemployed! Congratulations! Yes, you will lose your job, yes, it will be hard to find another one with the economy in the shape that it’s in, but YES, you also do get a vacation from working!*
With the proposed cap and trade bill limiting the amount of emissions companies across America can produce or they will have to pay (trade) with lesser-emissions-producing companies to comply with the limit. The companies that can’t comply or would rather not participate in the trade will just move their factories, and your jobs, to other countries!
Taking a vacation by yourself is rarely fun, so it’s going to be a social event! With an unemployment rate of over 10%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, one in every ten providers for their families do not have jobs! With over ten percent of the United States’ population already on this vacation, the party will just grow! The more, the merrier, right?
But surely, you must say, the United States government cannot afford to send more of its able-bodied citizens into vacation when the economy desperately needs us to be working! Obviously they would enjoy the vacation less than we would, so they are doing all they can to stop this from happening! Can you believe it? They have a couple ideas to keep us from our much-deserved holiday. Firstly, according to the New York Times, President Obama himself said that the cap and trade bill will create new green jobs "that can't be outsourced." Oh darn. By creating jobs, and on top of that, jobs that cannot be moved to other countries, this bill will surely keep us busy, right?
Haha! The joke’s on them. According to reports by the National Manufacturer’s Foundation and the American Council for Capital Formation, the cap and trade bill will allow up to 2.4 million Americans to party while only 1.7 million people getting the green jobs that suck the fun out of everything. If I can do math right, that still leaves a possible invite list of 700,000 American people.
Anti-vacation idea number two: set tariffs on goods imported to prevent the jobs from moving out of the country. This idea is actually a threat of working, but it isn’t going to be put into action until 2020, so we’ve got a solid decade off, and that is only if the economy can survive until then!
Don’t worry though, while you are on your work vacation, the environment of the United States will improve gradually over the next forty years, so you will have nice weather and clearer skies…eventually!
No need to worry about those illegal immigrants taking over our stomping grounds anymore either, they will be too busy working in the American factories in their own countries to have time to try to sneak into our country! Maybe, just maybe, the Mexican government will welcome you with open arms into their country in return for the kindness we have shown their people in our land.
I know this may not be the most, if any, of the American people’s dream—to be forced into an unpaid break, but it’s okay, because the government is promising that the loopholes will be tied up in 2020 when a trading tariff will be placed on imported goods, hence taking the appeal out of outsourcing, so chances are this won’t be permanent! If you just start saving food and what money you have now, you’ll probably be just fine, so don’t worry. The prices for every product that has a high-emissions production will skyrocket, but who needs those things anyway? I mean, really, we can live without gas! Just think of this whole thing as getting in touch with nature, in every way imaginable. Thank you US government for this opportunity. We can’t fully express our excitement and appreciation.
*Vacation indefinite. The US government is not responsible for any negative side effects which may include hunger, loss of home, or even death. See to your Congressman for details.

Concrete and Revision

Last post I tried to rewrite portions of my paper but this time I decided to read the body of my paper and think like a person that does not know anything about cap and trade. Although I had to make my paper sound less academic, I was able to get rid of a lot of unnecessary jargon and give some good examples. Concrete is way easier than simple and unexpected.

 

            The most immediate change felt by the American family will be the rapid increase in energy costs. Waxman-Markey only directly regulates the air pollution of energy companies such as the electric, oil, and natural gas industries. While Waxman-Markey does not directly charge individual Americans they will have to bear the increased costs as these industries are charged for polluting. This has been true in Europe where the European Union has introduced its own cap and trade system, the Emissions Trading System (ETS). Despite the European government’s decision to distribute pollution permits without costs, European energy companies still charged customers for these permits. The Washington Post reported that electricity prices in Germany have risen by 25% since the beginning of the ETS in 2005.

The exact amount that energy costs would rise is unknown but almost all sources agree that Waxman-Markey would cause a very substantial increase. According to the testimony of Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation before the Senate Republican Conference, this legislation could nearly double an American family’s energy bill. This does not include other debilitating rate hikes in gasoline and natural gas. These rising rates would be especially problematic for low-income families where energy costs already constitute a very large percentage of their income. Electricity bills alone could cost more than 10% of their post-tax dollars. Countering these estimates, the Congressional Budget Office claims that energy prices would only rise by $175, or about a postage stamp per day for an American family. The Wall Street Journal is quick to point out that this calculation is based on “so many caveats as to render it useless.” In fact, almost every other source puts the anticipated energy cost increases at around $1,500 for a family each year. Even the Obama Administration’s calculations, initially withheld because of its potentially negative effects on the passage of the legislation, put the cost at $1,761 per year.

Along with increased costs for American families, energy costs for companies that use large amounts of electricity would also rise substantially. Small and large businesses alike would be at the mercy of an unsteady energy market. The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) cites the example of Kollo Holding to illustrate the effects that cap and trade can have on businesses. Kollo Holdings is a Dutch silicon carbonate maker that claims to have one of the most environmentally friendly factories on Europe. They use a sophisticated pollution-capture system to not only control their air pollution but also to generate a portion of their own electricity. After the implementation of the ETS, Kollo Holdings has not been able to continue its operations full-time because of high electricity costs. It has also had to layoff almost one-third of its employees and has lost customers to foreign companies that are not burdened by these electricity costs. The NCPA also describes how French cement companies are losing business to Morocco because Morocco does not have similar added energy costs. American companies are at risk for these same unintended consequences if the Waxman-Markey legislation passes. Further weakening American companies in these difficult economic times could easily lead to their collapse.

A more sticky, concrete, and better-er argument

            Imagine studying for a science test using an outdated textbook with old theories and information that has been proven false.  No matter how hard you studied, it wouldn’t help you on the test.  It might actually make your score worse!

            The United States is facing a major science test of its own, one that it cannot afford to fail.  It’s a test on how the country tackles the looming pollution problem it faces.  A lot of different ideas on how to slow pollution and its effects on our environment have been brought up, but will they really work?

Cap and trade is one such proposed solution to the pollution problem.  The idea is that the government sets a limit, or cap, on how much emissions are allowed to be released every year.  Organizations are then given permits by the government allowing them to pollute.  Over time, the cap is reset lower forcing organizations to pollute less.  If organizations are able to reduce their emissions, they can trade their permits to other organizations for money.  Cap and trade has support because it is viewed as a way to cut down on pollution and allow organizations to profit from being environmentally friendly.

            Despite the good intentions of cap and trade, it’s actually been proven to increase emissions!  Just like cramming for a science test with an outdated textbook, no matter how hard we try, it’s just not going to work.

            Cap and trade was first implemented on a large scale in Europe in 2005.  After three years, emissions actually rose by 1.9 percent.  In fact, from 2000 to 2005, emissions in Europe rose 2.5 percent compared to the United States where emissions only increased by 0.7 percent.

            So what happened in Europe that made cap and trade backfire?  A big reason it didn’t work was the misuses and abuses in the system.

            Billionaire and investor George Soros said that the cap and trade system “can be gamed; that’s why financial types like me like it – because there are financial opportunities”.

            The initial step of setting the cap is problematic because organizations have billions of dollars at stake.  Energy is a big money business and organizations will spend millions of dollars lobbying and persuading government officials to ensure the cap as well as the terms of the legislation benefit them.

Some companies that have become notorious for exploiting financial opportunities such as Enron and Goldman Sachs, were early supporters of cap and trade.  Goldman Sachs in particular saw cap and trade as an enormous opportunity to profit from.  President Obama conservatively estimates the legislation to create a $646 billion market for carbon credits that will only go up in price as they become more and more of a commodity.

After the cap was set in Europe, the market was awash in permits.  The organizations that had historically polluted the most received the most permits; they were basically rewarded for polluting.  Many organizations even got free permits because they were based on predictions of future emissions levels.

To make matters worse, organizations could look for the financial opportunities and loopholes to make more money while failing to reduce emissions.  That happened in Malaysia where the Sinar Mas corporation cut down forests.  Forests are brakes on climate change, taking in carbon dioxide.  The company then took the razed land and planted palm oil trees.  Although the trees didn’t make up for the ecological damage the company caused, they earned permits and was able to pollute more than the cap should have let them.

Organizations could also exaggerate how much carbon they emitted or were planning to emit.  By embellishing the numbers, they are able to claim they are lowering their emissions without actually doing anything and, in the process, earn more permits.

            Some might argue that the problems encountered in Europe don’t necessarily have to happen in the United States.  That is true, but it disregards the fact that there aren’t many examples of legislation being passed that manages to plug all the loopholes; it just doesn’t happen.

            Even in the best of circumstances, it’s likely that cap and trade would do little to combat pollution.  Climate Scientist Chip Knappenberger said that cap and trade would reduce the earth's future temperature by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.  Considering the massive economic damage that many predict would befall the United States for adopting the legislation, is it worth less than a degree change in the global temperature over the course of a century?  That fails to take into account developing nations which are expected to contribute extraordinarily to global emissions levels.  China, for example, uses coal for 70 percent of its energy needs, needs that will only continue to grow.  Even if the United States managed to find a way to make cap and trade work, the miniscule gains would be overshadowed by emissions from other nations.

            Cap and trade is plagued with too many problems.  The Washington Post said, “Cap-and-trade regimes have advantages…but they are complex and vulnerable to lobbying and special pleading, and they do not guarantee success.”

            A solution to our global pollution problem must be found, but cap and trade is not the way.  No matter how hard we try, making cap and trade work is like studying from an outdated textbook.  The United States needs to look at new ideas and plans and find a better solution.  The solution is finding alternate sources of energy.  Although supporters of cap and trade will argue that the pressure of a lowering cap will force organizations to seek alternative sources of energy, it's unlikely that a centrally planned, government run scenario will do that.  It will take a free market and technological innovation to reach that goal.

Surprise! Cap and Trade Actually Leads to an Increase in Emissions

The bottom line of cap and trade is to improve the environment.  By limiting the limit of emissions that can be released by organizations over the next forty years, supporters of cap and trade legislation hope to reduce them by 80 percent.  That sounds great in practice, but will it actually work?

Some estimate that if all were to go according to plan, cap and trade could combat global warming.  Although the legislation is expected to have harmful effects on the economy, destroying American jobs, giving competing nations the economic advantage over us, and costing the American consumer untold millions of dollars, if it begins to turn back the tables on climate change, isn't it worth it?  Climate Scientist Chip Knappenberger said that cap and trade would reduce the earth's future temperature by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.  That's a lot of trouble to not even get a full degree change over the course of a century.

The bad news is that those estimates are the good ones.  Some predict that cap and trade wouldn't reduce emissions at all.  Opponents need to look no further than Europe for proof.

Europe passed cap and trade legislation in 2005.  The Emissions Trading Scheme as it was called, did not turn out to be as easy as some hoped.  Reducing emissions is a very difficult and expensive practice, and it didn't even work.  Emissions actually rose in Europe after the Emissions Trading Scheme was passed.

Despite lofty rhetoric from European leaders that stricter rules will be put in place and the plan will actually work, support for it is dwindling.  Various organizations ranging from German automakers and Italian steel makers to Russian energy companies that cutoff the supply of natural gas to Western Europe show how so many rely on coal and how delicate the politics around international energy can be.

Even under the unlikeliest but best of circumstances, cap and trade wouldn't be able to improve the environment.  If Europe and the United States managed to cut through the big dollars, fruad, and unethical activities of lobbyists and the companies that stand to gain or lose millions of dollars from this legislation, the rest of the emerging industrialized world doesn't want to play by the same rules.  It doesn't do much good for a handful of countries to reduce emissions while nations like India and China continue to pump their own emissions into the environment.

Improving the environment is a noble and worthwhile goal, but cap and trade is not the answer.  In all likelihood, it will ironically lead to rising emissions.  The solution is finding alternate sources of energy.  Although supporters of cap and trade will argue that the pressure of a lowering cap will force organizations to seek alternative sources of energy, it's unlikely that a centrally planned, government run scenario will do that.  It will take a free market and technological innovation to reach that goal.

Stickiness is harder than I thought

I used some portions of my paper that I thought were really the core of my argument and then tried to make them stickier. It may be little over the top but I have never been able to write something like this so I thought I would try it out.

Before we save the whales we need to save Americans. In fact, it will be average Americans and their foreign counterparts who actually do the saving. As individuals are willing to make a difference, the environment will improve. Environmental legislation that injures American families will cut any popular support for environmental reform. Images of recycling slogans, happy whales, and tender saplings are appealing but may not be America’s biggest concern right now. The costs of enacting environmentally smart ideas could be leaving struggling American families homeless and unemployed. The American economy is struggling to stay afloat amidst its worst recession since the Great Depression. Amidst this economic turmoil, there is new cap and trade legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives—the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Waxman-Markey). This legislation might possibly help the environment but will definitely hurt the economy. The Waxman-Markey legislation should not be passed at this time because it will hurt America’s ability to recover from its current economic illness. While the bill might be appropriate in a time of economic prosperity, it would be a poisonous pill for an already sick economy. My purpose is not to analyze the environmental effects of this legislation but instead to focus only on the economic ramifications and timeliness of this bill. 

            The most immediate change felt by the American family will be the rapid increase in electricity prices. Waxman-Markey only directly regulates the emissions of on-sight energy producers: the electric, oil, and natural gas industries. While American citizens are not directly regulated they will have to bear the increased costs as businesses are charged for polluting. According to the testimony of Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation before the Senate Republican Conference, this legislation could nearly double an American family’s energy bill. This does not include other debilitating rate hikes in gasoline and natural gas. These rising rates would be especially problematic for low-income families where energy costs already constitute a very large percentage of their income. It could mean the difference between making house payments and foreclosing. Countering these estimates, the Congressional Budget Office claims that energy prices would only rise by $175. The Wall Street Journal is quick to point out that this calculation is based on “so many caveats as to render it useless.” In fact, almost every other source puts the anticipated energy cost increases at around $1,500 for a family each year.  Even the Obama Administration’s calculations, initially withheld because of its potentially negative effects on the legislation, put the cost at $1,761 per year. This much money could keep a family of four fed for almost a year.

            Much of the environmental reform that has been proposed in the past is often ignored or postponed for political reasons. The Waxman-Markey legislation is another valiant attempt to save the environment. However, this legislation needs to be postponed not to save the career of some politician but until the American people are in a position to be able to support it. This legislation would push an already low economy deeper into the mire it is trying to escape. Waiting until the American people are on more stable ground would make this legislation more economically viable. Passage of the Waxman-Markey legislation right now would be a sure way to injure a crippled economy and build additional resistance to environmental reform.

Par-tay!

Congratulations! You may have just won a vacation! No work, just relaxing and taking it easy with the family. What could be more ideal? Little did the government know that by signing this cap and trade bill into effect, they would also be sending millions of people on vacation!

Now at this moment, you may be asking yourself, “How do I know if I’m one of the lucky ones to have earned a vacation?!” Well, here’s how you can tell: do you work for a manufacturing company? Do you work in a coal mine? Do you work at any company that will be required to dramatically cut down emissions? If you have answered yes to any of the following questions, you have pretty much guaranteed yourself a spot in the pool of the soon to be unemployed! Congratulations! Yes, you will lose your job, yes, it will be hard to find another one with the economy in the shape that it’s in, but YES, you also do get a vacation from working!*

With the proposed cap and trade bill limiting the amount of emissions companies across America can produce or they will have to pay (trade) with lesser-emissions-producing companies to comply with the limit. The companies that can’t comply or would rather not participate in the trade will just move their factories, and your jobs, to other countries! Don’t worry though, while you are on your work vacation, the environment of the United States will improve gradually over the next forty years, so you will have nice weather and clearer skies…eventually! You won’t be alone on your vacation either. With over ten percent of the United States’ population already on this vacation, the party will just grow! The more, the merrier, right?

No need to worry about those illegal immigrants taking over our stomping grounds anymore either, they will be too busy working in the American factories in their own countries to have time to try to sneak into our country! Maybe, just maybe, the Mexican government will welcome you with open arms into their country in return for the kindness we have shown their people in our land.

I know this may not be the most, if any, of the American people’s dream—to be forced into an unpaid break, but it’s okay, because the government is promising that the loopholes will be tied up in 2020 when a trading tariff will be placed on imported goods, hence taking the appeal out of outsourcing, so chances are this won’t be permanent! If you just start saving food and what money you have now, you’ll probably be just fine, so don’t worry. The prices for every product that has a high-emissions production will skyrocket, but who needs those things anyway? I mean, really, we can live without gas! Just think of this whole thing as getting in touch with nature, in every way imaginable. Thank you US government for this opportunity. We can’t fully express our excitement and appreciation.

*Vacation indefinite. The US government is not responsible for any negative side effects which may include hunger, loss of home, or even death. See to your Congressman for details.

Counterargument

While I am arguing that H.R. 2454 or the “American Clean Energy Act 2009”, will cause the United States to outsource, the counterargument to this is simply that it won’t. The opening statement of the bill in fact claims that it is aimed to “create clean energy jobs” and not take any jobs away. According to the New York Times, President Obama himself said that climate tax policies will create new green jobs "that can't be outsourced." The Energy Secretary was also recorded as saying that “tariffs and other trade barriers could be used as a ‘weapon’ to force countries like China and India into cutting their own CO2 emissions.” By both creating jobs that cannot be outsourced, and setting tariffs and trade barriers, outsourcing will be almost out of the question.

Fox News confirms that the bill “includes a provision to impose tariffs -- starting in 2020 -- on imports from countries that don't have a system for limiting global warming pollution.” So, in 10 years from now, all countries that do not support their own similar cap and trade law will be subject to a tax on all goods coming to the US of A. Seems like they’ve got a handle on this, right?

To top it off, the third section of the bill, entitled “International Participation” addresses the issue of the other powerhouse countries who should participate, namely China and India. When they adapt to a policy similar to our cap and trade bill, it will essentially nullify the possibility of outsourcing to those countries and entice other countries to follow suit. While the amendment to not pass our own cap and trade bill until China and India passed theirs was rejected, this section of the bill mandates that the Administrator generates a report regarding the status of similar laws each in each country, each year for Congress, so they are aware of these two countries’ stance.

Okay, the government is aware of the outsourcing threat that looms over the cap and trade bill, but they aren’t providing solutions sufficient for it. Reason 1: creating clean energy jobs won’t make up for the void the loss of the other jobs will create. Reason 2: The same Energy Secretary was later quoted as saying, “If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage." Whoops. He let that one slip. Reason 3: It can be summed up as one journalist explains, “The quandary is straight out of Econ 101: As long as some countries restrict emissions and some don't, many firms will simply move their emissions rather than eliminate them, seriously compromising CO2 reduction targets.” Yes, a tax would do well to keep a hold on outsourcing, but it would also cause more problems, such as other countries to be hesitant, even unwilling to do business with the United States because of this, and this would only be put into effect in 10 years, which is more than enough to break out economy in the already weakened state it is in. So, are we really eliminating the emissions, or just moving them to another location? Hmmm.

Anti-European ETS--Colby

Claim: The implementation of the ETS model has decreased the likelihood of using cap and trade in other places to reduce carbon emissions.

Reason: The implementation of the ETS model has had broad negative economic effects as a result of using cap and trade.

Assumption: Whatever has broad negative economic effects as a result of using cap and trade also decreases the likelihood of using cap and trade to reduce carbon emission in other places.

In principle, people are not opposed to cleaning up and maintaining the environment. These principles lose their efficacy when environmental reforms have deep personal impacts. The EU Emission Trading System (ETS) was the first multinational emissions trading scheme and because it was the first of its kind, it also had unforeseen economic consequences that affect both businesses and individual citizens. The implementation of the EU ETS decreases the likelihood of other emissions trading programs being implemented in the future because of the negative economic effects.

Although the ETS program is broken down by emissions for individual countries, the true result is that the companies within those countries are the affected parties. It is the German electricity producers and the French cement industry that feel the true effects of the program, not just the countries in general. Businesses are concerned with their own viability and profits because that is how they survive. It would be counterintuitive for them to put environmental concerns first (especially in high polluting industries) because it would lead to their demise. Businesses must resist the implementation of the cap and trade system because it has the potential to severely injure their stability and profitability. Examples such as the incredibly high cost of electricity that has resulted from emission caps will not go unnoticed. Companies will keep these economic impacts in mind as they resist the implementation of cap and trade.

The negative economic effects seen in Europe make non-European companies less willing to participate and force them to lobby against it. For example, the American Petroleum Institute (API), which is funded by American-based petroleum companies, has staged grass root protests and other lobby activities to oppose cap and trade legislation. Soaring energy prices has been the most prominent failure of the ETS and American companies are becoming more aware of what emissions trading would do to the energy sector.

Negative economic effects hurt consumers and average citizens and thus make opposition campaigning easier. The rising price of electricity in European countries that participate in the ETS and coupled with decreases in productivity and employment because of emissions caps also affects the common citizen. These negative effects have become powerful tools to hinder cap and trade implementation. An article from Reuters states: “Cap and trade works by limiting carbon emissions from polluters, which then pass on the extra cost to consumers.” Even legislators are using the high energy prices to oppose cap and trade. Senator John Boozman said that cap and trade “could cost every American family as much as $3,100 per year in the way of high energy prices.”

The negative economic effects from cap and trade in Europe—most easily seen in energy prices—are creating problems for emissions trading implementation in other places. The ETS has left a bitter taste in the mouth of many people and other countries are hesitant to implement a system with so many known problems.

Anti-Cap and Trade - Hunter

                Cap and trade is not the best way to help the environment.  Because of financial opportunities in the system, corporations will look for opportunities to cheap and emissions will actually rise.

                The first step of setting the cap will inevitably fail.  Deciding where to set the cap and how much to reduce it over time is a political process and will involve the various corporations  lobbying to set the cap as high as possible.

                Energy is a big money business and there are ample examples of companies acting unethically to make more money.  The most notorious example is Enron, an energy company that produced artificial blackouts in California to raise the cost of energy.  Enron was among the companies advocating for cap and trade legislation during the 1990s. 

Billionaire and investor George Soros said that the cap and trade system “can be gamed; that’s why financial types like me like it – because there are financial opportunities”.

Corporations will look for the financial opportunities and the loopholes which will make them more money while failing to reduce emissions.

Further, the companies that have historically polluted the most will be rewarded with the most permits to pollute.  These permits will be given away for free not only for past pollution, but they will be given away to corporations that claim to reduce their emissions.  A company could do something that adds carbon to the environment, but then do something that allows them to earn more permits, thus allowing even more carbon into the environment.

That happened in Malaysia where the Sinar Mas corporation cut down forests.  Forests are brakes on climate change, taking in carbon dioxide.  The company then took the razed land and planted palm oil trees.  Although the trees didn’t make up for the ecological damage the company caused, they earned permits and was able to pollute more than the cap should have let them.

Companies could also exaggerate how much carbon they emitted or were planning to emit.  By embellishing the numbers, they are able to claim they are lowering their emissions without doing anything and, in the process, earn more permits.

With permits being tossed around like that, the cost will jump around while energy costs for consumers rise.  This scenario already occurred in Europe after cap and trade legislation was passed.  During this time, carbon emissions actually rose.

Even after the cap was reset, the European market was filled with cheap permits, many of them easily obtained in the third world.  Companies had no incentive to cut emissions, but were able to continue to pollute within a legal framework.  It’s likely that the same scenario could happen in the United States.

Viewing cap and trade as a real environmental solution is dangerous because it could pacify companies, governments, and citizens from looking for more effective solutions.

The History of Cap and Trade - Hunter

What are the consequences of passing cap and trade legislation on worsening the environment?  Cap and trade legislation makes polluting permissible within a legal framework.  Whatever makes polluting permissible withing a legal framework worsens the environment.

     The idea of cap and trade originated in the 1960's.  Called emissions trading, it was thought to be one of the best solutions to pollution problems.  The idea was to set a cap on how much pollution could be created.  Companies would then receive permits allowing them to pollute a certain amount.  If they didn't use them, they could sell them to other companies.  The thinking was that market forces would solve the problem.
     Cap and trade wasn't considered a viable option until the late 1980's.  Seeking to curb acid rain, the Republican George H.W. Bush administration supported the Clean Air Act.
     In 2005, the European Union passed cap and trade legislation to curb emissions.  Companies that were big polluters were given the most pollution permits and no incentive to stop polluting.  After the legislation was passed, emissions actually went up.
     In the United States, cap and trade legislation for emissions was introduced in 2009.  The American Clean Energy and Security Act as it was named, was passed by the House of Representatives.  It has yet to be ratified by the Senate.  Supporters included a large number of Democrats, many environmental groups, as well as energy companies.
     These supporters argue that cap and trade is the best way to deal with the climate crisis.  The cap on emissions will be lowered as time passes and force companies to pollute less.  They reason that smart companies will be able to profit by becoming more environmentally friendly and selling their permits.  It is a way to let the market fix the pollution problem.  Without many other viable options, those supporting cap and trade argue that it's better than not doing anything about the problem.
     Opponents argue that cap and trade would not work out as easily as others predict.  The biggest polluters are the entities that receive the most permits, thus rewarding them for polluting.  These valuable permits are given away for free rather than being sold or auctioned.  If companies had to buy these permits, they would become much more valuable and companies would think twice before polluting.  There is also the possibility the cap could be set too high and pollution could actually go up.  Because setting the cap is a highly political issue, companies are inevitably going to lobby to get it as high as possible.
     A main argument is that those involved in obtaining, buying, and selling credits will be unethical about it. There are businessmen constantly looking for the next bubble where they can buy low and sell high.  Cap and trade could be the next market to do so.
     Opponents argue that these and other issues will mean cap and trade will end up doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do.  Like what happened in Europe, emissions could actually increase.
     

Colby and the European Cap and Trade Model

Claim: The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) has made the use of cap and trade more likely in the future.           

Reason: The ETS is successful because it has established a working cap and trade model for others to build on.

Assumption: Whatever establishes a working cap and trade model for others to build on also makes the use of cap and trade more likely in the future.

 

            The concept of cap and trade spur strong emotions not only in environmentalists but in economists, politicians and now in Europeans as well. The European Union implemented the first phase the first multinational cap and trade program, called the Emissions Trade System (ETS), from 2005-2007. Despite shortcomings, more cap and trade programs are likely to be introduced in the future because a working system—the ETS—has been established as a working model.

            The success of the ETS has been due, in large part, to its multinational character. This program began with 15 member of the EU who pioneered the test phase of the ETS. As a result of the large number of countries involved and the political negotiations necessary to establish the system, the ETS has received a lot of publicity in Europe throughout the world. The attention for just the initial phase continues even three years after its completion. Analysis now indicates that phase one reduced carbon emissions by 1.9%. The overall consensus is that this has been an environmental success. The most important thing that has been established is that the ETS is a working model of cap and trade that could be used in other locations to reduce carbon emissions.

            The success of the ETS is apparent in the expansion of the ETS system. Due to the broad support for the system, participation expanded in the second phase. Some of the smaller countries in Europe joined the ETS as did three non-EU members: Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. These three countries reveal that the environmental progress of the ETS will draw other countries into using a similar system. Where members of the EU might join as a result of union pressure, these three outside countries clearly joined independent of these pressures and because the ETS was working.

            Those who claim that the ETS has damaged the future implementation of cap and trade to combat carbon emissions point to its economic affects. While it is true that the ETS has had some unforeseen economic consequences, the ETS is developing mechanisms to combat these problems. The second phase of the ETS implemented flexibility mechanisms, such as joint implementation and the clean development mechanism, to lessen the ETS’s economic impact. This willingness to change the system and consider the economy makes the ETS an ideal model because of it versatility.

            As time goes on, the benefits of the ETS are becoming clearer. It has reduced emissions in Europe, showing that cap and trade is a viable option to reduce carbon emissions. This success has led to an expansion of cap and trade in Europe. Non-European countries will be more likely to implement cap and trade because they have seen that it works and can more confidently develop their own systems with the lessons learned from the ETS model. 

Camille's Argument

We do live in a beautiful world, that's the truth. It is also true that we are responsible for it. There is little more beautiful to me than the sky on a sunny day and so I too lament as pollutants are destroying earth's natural beauty. I do heartily agree that some change needs to occur in order to respect and protect this beautiful earth that Heavenly Father has provided for us BUT, I believe that the Cap-and-Trade Bill is the wrong way to go about it. As I see it, the costs of this particular bill will far outweigh the benefits.

We'll start with the benefits. The bill has a forty-year plan to reduce emissions of toxic pollutants by up to 83%, the bill encourages high emissions-producing companies to lower emissions in order to trade and make profit for being more environmentally-friendly, and to be frank, it's the best attempt yet made to modify our increasingly dangerous patterns of polluting our earthly home.

Now the cons. Honestly, I cannot come up with point of this bill that negatively affects the environment, but a whole slew that affect the economy. Still living in the wake of an economic crisis, now being called "a recession," these economic effects will take a heavy toll. With the laws put into place, either energy and fuel prices will skyrocket because let's face it, they are what truly pollute the environment the most, or, the companies within our country will result to outsourcing, or having all the "messy" work done outside of the United States so that companies can stay within or below their alloted pollutant emissions. Honestly, I think it will be a combination of both, but I want to primarily focus on outsourcing.

My enthymeme so far is this. What are the consequences of the Cap-and-Trade bill on the unemployment rate in the United States?

Claim: The Cap-and-Trade bill will create more unemployment within the United States.

Reason: Because the Cap-and-Trade bill will cause more outsourcing

Assumption: Whatever causes outsourcing also causes less jobs (or more unemployment) within the United States.

The way I see it, because huge companies that depend so heavily upon fossil fuels and the like will be restricted as to how much they are able to use/ burn off (even our cars will have a cap to how much fuel we can use), many companies will look to other countries, say China or India for example, where there is no cap to emissions and where things can be manufactured at at lower rate, thus helping them keep their sales up without sacrificing too much. While this is great news to the poorer countries who will benefit greatly from this, this won't fare too well with our own American citizens. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in March of 2010, the unemployment rate in the United States is at a shocking 10.2%. Right now in the government, what we truly need are bills passed that will help our citizens get jobs, take care of bare necessities, and to strengthen our country from within, before we can tackle problems like this.

I'm thinking that my counter-argument will be that people are hoping that other countries will follow suit and pass bills of the same caliber, thus essentially nixing the possibility of outsourcing, but I'm not sure. Can you think of other strong counter-arguments?