Cross Reference - Joe's Land Blog

If I owned the sun, an examination of some of the forces that inhibit the expansion of solar technology in the US.

New Blog / Corporate Welfare

I’m pleased to announce that I have launched a new Blog, Joe’s Land Blog, in which I will focus on issues that relate to our environment and land preservation causes, as well as my own experiences as a backyard gardener. (In reality, I have launched two new Blogs in the last week, but I’m not ready to tell you about the other one just yet). Over the last ten years or so I have transformed from "apethist" to pseudo-activist in the political arena, with a special interest in the environmental issues affecting the United States. The launching of Joe’s Land Blog is the next logical step for me to try attempt to spread awareness about the dangers facing this wonderful planet of ours.

The first entry at Joe’s Land Blog concerns the Energy Bill currently moving forward through Congress. The House version of this bill contains language that would protect the oil companies from lawsuits regarding the water contamination resulting from the gasoline additive MTBE. (To its credit, the Senate version does not carry such language, which has killed the bill in the past). You can read my comments regarding that issue over at JLB. In this space, I would like to take a moment to comment on the concept of corporate "protection".

One of the greatest embarrassments of American politics and culture is the devotion to protecting corporate profits. Indeed, it is the greatest embarrassment, as practically all the wrongs perpetuated by our governments (e.g. Iraq) and our corporate leaders (Enron, among a very long list) can be traced to the protection of corporate profits. It’s obvious why our elected "representatives" continue to vote on the side of Corporate America, for it is Corporate America’s deep pockets that will fund the next re-election campaign. What is less obvious, is why we the people continue to elect government officials who do not act in our best interests. Well, I guess that one is obvious, too – we really don’t have a choice. People who would represent the people never get to the ballot. The people need to make a grassroots effort to get such candidates on the ballot, and to vote them into office, because those we have today are destroying our country and our (the middle- and lower-classes) way of life.

Take the House of Representative’s desire to protect the oil companies from liability related to MTBE, for example. The standard line is that lawsuits would cut into profitability, and that would result in higher prices to the consumer. Indeed, such lawsuits (or merely proactively cleaning up the damage) will cost in the billions of dollars. Estimates for the cost of the cleanup range from as little as $1.5 billion (American Petroleum Institute) to as high as $89 billion (municipal water utilities). Lawsuits would likely up the price tag, because the lawyers need to get paid, too.

That’s a lot of money for the oil industry to absorb. Prices will undoubtably increase. But consider this: according to the investor information available at Yahoo.com, ExxonMobil recorded $27B in profits over the 12 months ended 3/31/05. If the API figure is correct, ExxonMobil could clean up the damage on its own with just a minor blip on its earnings. That’s just one company. British Petroleum recorded $17B in profits in 2004. Chevron $13B. Royal Dutch/Shell is a private company, so financial information isn’t readily available, but it is between BP and Chevron in size. Say $15B. ConocoPhillips’ profits were $8B for the year.

Between just these five companies (not including many smaller companies, not to mention MTBE manufacturers), one year’s profits of $80B would cover 90% of the most pessimistic cleanup cost estimates. Cleanup, however, would be spread out over many years, mitigating the impact on profitability. This is an industry that could sustain such a cost, and it would recover most of it at the pump, regardless. Insurance companies would also cover much of the cost, resulting increased liability premiums - primarily to the petroleum industry - in the future. Market forces, however, would likely retain some of the cost in the bottom lines of the large corporations, too. The cost of the cleanup, then, is borne by users of gasoline, people who buy insurance, and shareholders of petroleum and insurance companies. In other words, all of us ultimately pay.

If we don’t protect the oil companies, the result is that we all share in the cost of the cleanup. Executives and shareholders of companies who have polluted the water while earning huge profits will pay their share (in lost bonuses/dividends/etc.), and people who use gasoline will pay more at the pump. The people who have benefited from how the oil and gasoline industry bypassed safety and public health in the name of profitability will be the same people paying the cleanup costs. That’s as it should be. Futhermore, Corporate America will have a little extra incentive to make the choice to not pollute in the future, now posessing the knowledge that they will likely be held liable down the road.

Now consider what happens if the oil companies are protected from liability lawsuits. What happens then? For one thing, where is the incentive for them to clean up their acts? It doesn’t exist. Corporations will feel empowered to continue to use products that are known pollutants and possible carcinogens. The impact on the public health is unknown. Whatever the cost, however, it will be borne by the healthcare industry and health insurers, ultimately resulting in increased healthcare costs.

Already you can see the costs being spread from specifically the users of petroleum (which is most of us, but concentrated in the heavier users of gasoline) to the users of healthcare (which is also all of us, but with no relation to how much petroleum we each use). Furthermore, while we can choose to reduce or eliminate the amount of gasoline we use, we can’t really make that choice when it comes to healthcare. Also consider that if public water is affected, our only alternative is bottled water, which costs more than public water or a private well.

I haven’t yet mentioned pollution abatement in this scenario. Eventually I suspect that we will come to our senses and decide that it’s bad to continue poisoning ourselves. At this point we’ll need to clean up the MTBE pollution. Since we have held the petroleum companies and MTBE manufacturers free from liability, we know that they aren’t going to cover the brunt of the costs. Who remains? Water consumers and taxpayers. The costs are moved further from those who have profited from the pollution and spread to those whose primary offense is the need to use water. Then consider that the Bush administration has been doing everything in its power to move the tax burden from Corporate America and high-wealth individuals to the working class.

The people responsible for the pollution earn tons of money as a result, and don’t pay their share into the public coffers. The rest of us pay through the cost of healthcare (and our health itself), the cost of our water and our own tax bills. It’s morally reprehensible. Civic responsibility should not be an afterthought in the pursuit of profits. We don't allow people to simply steal money from somebody else and keep it as their own, we punish them. Stealing our natural resources, making others pay for one's actions, is another form of stealing, and should be punished, not rewarded.

If your elected representatives to Congress are among those who support the bill that protects the oil companies from MTBE liability, please ask yourself exactly how this person is representing you and serving the public good. Then ask yourself why this person was allowed to be elected. It's time to change the system.

Making Strides

I have recently taken what I see as a very important step (hopefully not a symbolic one, but we shall see about that) in my writing "career" – I applied for a writing job. I won’t go into a lot of specifics here, but it would be writing for a local business magazine, meaning I actually have some relevant experience on my resume. None of that experience is as a "writer", however, and I’m sure many of the applicants do have writing credentials, so I have to face the facts that this is a long shot. I go into the process optimistically however - if they are willing to take a chance on me, I am sure they will be rewarded.

While I am optimistic and excited about the prospect, I’ll admit that I am also a little scared. All that I have heard about having a writing career in Maine is that it’s hard to make any money. This job is no different in that I won’t be getting rich at it, and my family will have to make some changes to how way spend our money (and maybe to how we earn money as well). We all tend to be frightened by things unknown. I’m no different.

I have wanted to leave my career in accounting and finance for several years, thinking that I would be much happier as a freelance writer. I’ve come to the realization that I am not really a good fit for the type of job that my experience points me toward, and I have a hard time buying into many of the "business" issues that concern my employers. My current employer has an eye to the bottom line in everything that they do, and it leads management to make many decisions that I don’t agree with. It was similar at Megabank, though surprisingly to a lesser extent.

I have always enjoyed writing, and I have always found time to write for the newsletters of the various companies that I have worked for. At pretty much every stop, somebody has read one of my articles and said, "you should be a writer." I always took that as a bit of an overblown compliment - "I want to make you feel good, but I'm not really serious." At my prior job, I had one person tell me that he was serious. "I mean it - you have talent!"

I heard it enough over the years that I started to think that maybe I could consider a career in writing.

My wife was kind, encouraging me and keeping he patience with me well past the timeframe of any other rational person. "Take a class," she would say. She also encouraged me to r espond to ads looking for sports reporters for small or medium-sized local newspapers. "Nah - I don't want to do that. We'd never pay the bills!" Something about the reporter jobs didn't appeal to me (aside from the low pay), for reasons that were difficult for me to articulate at that time. I think I can articulate it now: I want to be a writer, not a reporter.

Reporters need to get the facts and report the facts. I want to do research and analysis and write my findings. I want to educate and sometimes entertain. I don't want to be sent on an assignment that needs to be done in two hours. I want to have time to craft an essay, choosing the right words, presenting the right facts, building to a conclusion. Reporters don't do this, feature writers do this.

The problem is, how does a guy with no writing resume get a job as a Features Writer, paying the same as a middle-management accounting would. The answer is, he doesn't. At least this guy doesn't know how that would happen.

Still, I have persisted with this crazy thought, and now I am taking strides toward my ultimate goal. Why now?, you may ask. Well, as noted above, I am ready to change my job again. As I look at the job listings, there is nothing that appeals to me. I keep thinking, "God! I don't want to do that again!" My resume has led me to exactly the point where the jobs available to me are ones that I don't have interest in - middle management, more about administration than the numbers. Frankly, this isn't my strength, or my interest. I can no longer find positions that I wish to apply for. And staying where I am now really isn't an option for my mental health.

The other factor that has come into play is the fact that I have met a writer who has transitioned from a business career to a writing career. I've plugged the book he's about to publish a couple times at my other blog, and I'll plug his writing business here. Though I haven't had the opportunity to really pick Jim's brain about how he pulled off this transition, he has been quite an inspiration to me. He's now written a book and started his own publishing company to get his book to the people. Since we met, I have been encouraged to write a lot more (as you can see at the Sea Blog), and I am already developing outlines for two writing projects that I plan to work on in the future.

So here I am, rapidly approaching my 40th birthday and at a crossroads in my career, and I am choosing to take a left-hand turn that I would never have envisioned ten years ago. The map is kind of vague about what I'll find down there, but I feel the need to go. I need to be able to afford fuel for my car, however, which is why I applied for the magazine job. I now feel comfortable saying "I am a writer," rather than "I want to be a writer." Please continue to check in to see how I progress in making it happen.

Support VAWA Renewal

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for renewal this year, and Men’s Resources International is sponsoring a Men’s Declaration of Support petition to urge Congress to approve the reauthorization of VAWA. Per the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, when VAWA was originally enacted in 1994 it "dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and made many more services available to victims. In 2000, Congress re-authorized the law, adding services for rural, older and immigrant women, as well as those with disabilities."

The current incarnation of VAWA "would enhance the civil and criminal justice response; improve services and outreach to victims; provide resources for sexual assault victims through rape crisis centers and state coalitions; help children and youth who experience or witness violence; address the needs of victims from communities of color; aid immigrant and tribal victims; and support prevention, health, housing and economic security programs designed to stop violence and help victims."

The Men’s Resource International Declaration of Support encourages men "to be part of the solution to the problem of domestic and sexual violence." Because I am married to a woman who has worked for both Domestic Violence and Sexual Assualt organizations, I am aware that there are very few men working in these fields. Since men perpetuate the vast majority of these types of crimes, it seems imperative to have more involvement from men in the endeavor to reduce the problem. Men can be positive role models to children and other men in modeling behavior that does not include violence.

VAWA would provide resources to Men’s Resources International and other organizations that are involved in training and supporting positive behaviors. Children are especially impressionable, and any programs involving children could prove to be invaluable. American society tolerates, even encourages, violence among boys, and children receive many messages through TV, movies, video games, etc. that demonstrate violence to be an OK option to handling conflict. VAWA would promote programs that offer more positive images to children, particularly those who have been exposed to violence in the household.

I encourage men to sign the Declaration, and I encourage all to let their Congress people know that you support the renewal of VAWA. The path to ending domestic and sexual violence against women is a long one, and this is a very important step toward moving us forward.