Impact of Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexico
By Wei Seng
At what cost this oil spill?
If you have been following the news in recent weeks, there has been a huge oil spill from a damaged oil rig off the coast of America in the Gulf of Mexico. The scale of the oil spill is supposed to be even greater than that of the biggest ever in history, the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 (you could visit this Time magazine photo gallery for a brief history). The costs in terms of the current oil spill (oil continues to spill from underground, and continues to spread towards the American coast, as this Time magazine article reports) continue to increase, not just in terms of economic but environmental, social and political.
The coast of Louisiana and Florida, which surround the Gulf of Mexico, contain sensitive habitats of many already-threatened wildlife. The spread of the oil slick towards these vital marshes and wetlands would exact a heavy ecological and environmental cost. Fisheries located off the coast would also be badly affected, and considering that America gets a significant proportion of its local fish from the waters here, the damage to the fishing industry as well as the threat to supplies of fish loom large. Details here.
The political cost of this disaster is potentially heavy too. President Obama will be judged on how he deals with this crisis, just like how President Bush was judged on how he dealt with Hurricane Katrina. His promise to expand offshore drilling will probably have to be reneged given how unpopular offshore drilling now will be thanks to this disaster. Environmentalists, while agonising over the damage to the ecology and environment of the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding coast, perhaps would be glad that at least a moratorium on offshore drilling will be re-imposed. As this Time magazine article reports, while expanding offshore drilling will support President Obama's energy strategy of diversification of energy sources and relying less on Middle Eastern / external sources of oil, this disaster has just complicated his strategy as it would be very unwise and unpopular to continue with offshore drilling. Even Republicans that used to support offshore drilling are now saying "NO!" because of the impact of the spill. While I would certainly be happy if offshore drilling is stopped, it would not solve the problem of reliance on the Middle East for oil. But hopefully this may mean a more in-depth consideration of other alternative energy sources: renewable sources such as solar energy amongst others. Unfortunately, given that offshore drilling was a concession to Republican demands in America's energy policy, now that offshore drilling will be off the table is there anything (realistic) that can bridge the divide between the Republicans and Democrats?
In addition, if offshore drilling is not permitted in America, oil imports have to continue from other countries, most of which have very lax environmental standards much worse than America's. While environmentalists in America may rejoice, environmentalists in other oil-producing countries may see their woes increase. All in, quite unsavoury choices that need to be made in the aftermath of the oil spil, but there's still that glimmer of hope that alternative, renewable energy will prevail.
Immigrants in the USA
By Wei Seng
Are non-whites accepted in America?
I have finally finished catching up with all the news in the newspapers accumulated since my India trip. One of the last articles I read in The Straits Times, written by Thomas Friedman in late March, featured immigrants in America. Coincidentally, the topic of immigration is now lashing up a storm in America, as the state of Arizona recently implemented an immigration law that allows authorities suspicious of one's immigrant status to check for his / her documents, without which the person suspected could be prosecuted and charged. So what's the big hoo-ha?
First, regarding Friedman's article. He proclaims his support for immigration into America, because many of these (legal) immigrants, with their "energetic, high-aspiring" spirits combined with America's democracy, can create "magic" and allow the country to surge "ahead of China". He uses more anecdotes, typical of the way he writes in The World Is Flat (almost like the Bible for students studying globalization today). His pro-globalization views also show in this article, as he justifies why America should open its doors to immigrants. As the processes of conceptualization, production and delivery of goods and services (in summary, the whole backbone that drives our economy today) are being commoditized and exported to places that can do it cheaper and better, the only thing that cannot be made a commodity is the "spark of an idea", and that presumably can and will come from many of America's immigrants. America needs to reform immigration to continue to attract bright young talent to the country.
Unfortunately, a month later, the state of Arizona passed a new law that is supposed to clamp down on illegal immigration but will also have the added effect of discrimination against those who look like non-natives or non-whites (many of them immigrants). Latest news from The Dallas Morning News indicates that people, even those in other states that are not affected by Arizona's new ruling, are taking to the streets to rally for support against such a law in their own state. The article briefly summarizes some of the issues that have come to the surface as a result of the ruling: "race" (what it means to be American), "border protection" (the tremendous number of illegal immigrants in America) and the "economic impact of undocumented workers" (competition for jobs with locals).
Illegal immigrants are a big problem in America, and technically speaking the law might be able to root out illegal immigrants. It is the notion of bigotry and xenophobia arising from the law that is creating the problem. Few think that illegal immigrants are not a problem, but how one deals with them is where there is a difference in opinion. Some think (rightly) that such legislation is a slap in the face for legal immigrants, because police can approach anyone who "looks" like an illegal immigrant (no prizes for guessing how: identify by skin colour, i.e. the Hispanics would be affected the most) and detain him / her if he / she cannot show the papers to prove that he is not an illegal immigrant. For many non-whites in America, the potential for the law to be abused is huge, and it seems like an insult to them despite all their contributions to the country.
America needs to be careful with how it reforms its immigration laws. Or it could risk dividing the country further in a time whereby politics is severely polarized as a result of healthcare reform.
America in the race towards clean energy
By Wei Seng
Clean energy for you?
Thus far in America, it is mainly the Democrats, with the support of environmentalists, who are championing clean energy (renewable energy such as wind and solar energy) as the way forward for America's energy future. Given the current problems in terms of environmental degradation and national security, heading towards clean energy seems like a viable solution to deal with both problems, but getting the Republicans to support such measures is difficult because many either do not believe in climate change or are skeptical of the impact of climate change. Jim DiPeso, as The Green Conservative (resident Republican environmentalist) on The Daily Green, argues that America needs to take the lead in clean energy and cannot wait for China to act, because China is already working on renewable energy, leaving America behind.
His appeal to the conservative Republicans? That America, as self-purported global leader, cannot wait for China to take the lead in pursuing renewable energy: in his words, why should America "forsake global leadership on a critical issue and defer to the world's largest communist country"?
And the larger point is, it is not just about losing the race towards developing clean energy technology: it is also about forsaking the money that could potentially pour in as well as jobs. Which dovetails nicely with what President Obama has been saying about clean energy: that it can bring in the jobs, even if you are skeptical about whether climate change is really happening or not.
The thing now is, will the Republicans embrace bipartisanship once again to piece together a clean energy bill? Unfortunately, given the immigration reform brouhaha in America right now, the only Republican senator pledging support for such a bill might withdraw his support... and perhaps lead to the collapse of the bill.
White in America – the new minority?
By Wei Seng
Not back to these days I hope
The last idea from the '10 Ideas for the Next 10 Years' column in Time magazine that caught my eye is one that pertains to America in particular though it could have ramifications in future for other countries facing a similar fate (even Singapore, for example).
Gregory Rodriguez writes about the "white anxiety crisis" and how "native-born white Americans" are poised to become the minority in America soon, as early as 2050 according to estimates by the US Census Bureau. This could certainly cause a backlash (amongst the white, that is) about what it means to be American, as well as attitudes of positive discrimination towards black / coloured minorities. Thus far the image of America has been one that is white, with African-Americans and Hispanics seen as the minority, the same way that the image of Africa conjured up is black while whites are the minority (usually remnants of colonial rule). How palatable (to the white as well as the black) would it be to have an America that is in proportion no longer majority white but still viewed or governed as a white-majority nation? The colouring of the United States would probably be seen as disturbing for "native-born whites" (in all honesty, the true natives of America are the native Indians, who have long been shunted and sidelined by the government). As the minority (at the moment still Hispanic and African-American, even Asian) clamour for more representation and more rights, the majority would now fight back as they see the threat of being overwhelmed in near future.
Worse still, could the threat of becoming the new minority cause the revival of white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan? I shudder to think of such an eventuality, but I am quite certain white supremacist thinking in some is still alive, just as much as blacks still think that the whites still have something against them.
However, it must be noted that the colouring of America is taking place in select states such as California, such that a convoluted situation would occur: 'majority' (in terms of land size / number of states) of the United States is still white but "strong white-minority political consciousness is most likely to arise in regions that are nowhere near... becoming majority-minority". The current minority are unlikely to expand to become the majority in many states such as Montana (think of the mountainous, central states of America), but it could well be people from states such as these that might be making the most noise about the colouring of America. I am reminded of the movie The Blind Side which I watched, where the black-white suspicion-tension often surfaced throughout the storyline and where racial segregation and discrimination is still not dead. It might not be an accurate reflection of the whole of America, but movies tend to portray some form of indication of societal views as well as perceptions.
So how is this all relevant to Singapore at all? There are parallels. Frequently in the papers articles emerge with regard to the Singapore government's promotion and welcoming of immigrants into Singapore, and then there will be letters and commentary about how native-born Singaporeans are being threatened and face a high likelihood of becoming the minority (just like the whites in America in 2050). Such fears are not exactly irrational, as this article from The Kent Ridge Common suggests. Studying the figures from the Statistics Singapore website, after some rough calculation the current non-resident (non-resident refers to people who are neither citizens or Permanent Residents) proportion of the population of Singapore as of 2009 is 25% while Permanent Residents form 11% of our total population and 16% of the resident population. These numbers are not huge but they are not exactly negligible either. Whether native citizens of Singapore will become the new minority in future remains to be seen; after all Singapore was created by immigrants centuries ago... though America was also created by immigrants centuries ago.
There may be lessons to learn from how America deals with this demographic situation.
The Mad Hatter’s Tea Party in America
By Wei Seng
Wont you come to my Tea Party?
Who would think that Colin Goh, a Singaporean columnist, writer and film-maker based in New York, would write something about politics in The Sunday Times? Best (or worst, depending on what you think about politics) of all, his column usually features in the generally light-hearted Lifestyle segment. I normally skip his columns because he keeps writing about his baby and his otherwise banal life in New York, but I was intrigued by his column title for today's article: "Mad Hatters and US politics". I read on, to much curiosity and realisation.
He describes how US politics is now quite farcical thanks to the tea party movement that is taking root across much of America. This tea party movement is against big government, and wishes to claim back ground it thinks the government is infriging upon. And of course, this tea party movement is aligned with the Repbulican party and most (if not all) of its values: free markets and no government intervention "whether in the economy, healthcare or the environment". I felt quite vindicated by his views, as someone who'd profess to be a Democrat if living in America. But let's not argue about the views of the Democrat. The whole farce about politics in America today is that Republican opposition to policies and initiatives that the Democrats are proposing, can range from sensibly valid to stubbornly nonsensical.
Colin says that "The US government is 'broken' because of the political impasse between the two dominant parties, and the revival of the conservative movement." And he uses Newton's Third Law of Motion, that "every action is met by an equal and opposite reaction", to describe the resistance of the Republicans to Democratic measures. He then writes that the conservatives seem unable to see the light about the whole crisis: that "lack of regulation just caused the biggest economic meltdown in years", and that "the loudest opponents of regulation just happen to be... those evil bankers and corporations". And I totally agree with him when he finds it "baffling... that conservatives are blaming the sorry state of the nation on the Democrats, who merely inherited the mess" from George W Bush.
And the Republicans are becoming a party of No just as Obama is saying that they should not be doing, for the sake of the nation. While I find it quite wrong for Obama to continue pushing through, by force, legislation on health care reform, the fact that no Republican agrees at all on anything despite already having some of their suggestions integrated into the policy does not make sense. I shall not go into details about health care reform, but suffice to say that as a Singaporean and someone who's more liberal, I believe that health care reform is necessary and many people sadly are just unwilling to feel the pain in the short term for potential benefits in the long term (as much as this piece of legislation is flawed... which piece of legislation isnt?).
Donna Brazile, in The Mercury, also alludes to the tea party movement (the Republicans and the tea party movement are almost one and the same now) and their vehement resistance to President Obama's health-care reforms. It gives more detailed examples of how Republican senators who campaigned for certain ideas in the bill to be included in the legislation but yet did an about-turn and dropped support for it in this final stretch of the race towards implementing the bill. It is not like President Obama did not offer them an open hand to reconcile differences, but the chasm between the two sides is probably too huge to surmount.
So has the Mad Hatter (what a coincidence, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is coming to screens near you now!) taken over the Tea Party in America, and made all these Tea Party-goers bonkers?
The source might be slightly biased given that Donna Brazile was a former campaign manager for Al Gore, former vice-president of America and a Democrat. Nevertheless, the problem remains: two polarised parties unable to agree on anything, unwilling to compromise, and hence unable to govern. For the good of all America, please come together to do something. It might be true that President Obama's views might not reflect the views of the WHOLE population, but to sit there and just say "No" without concrete action (they provided the suggestions to change, but they tend dropped the support for those changes... those are concrete suggestions, but is that concrete action?) will not move the nation forward.
Gardening in School – Education or Distraction?
By Wei Seng
Homework: Watering the plants
I chanced upon a very interesting article by Gloria Dawson on The Daily Green. This phenomenon is not so much seen in Singapore than in the United States, where gardening in schools was introduced and encouraged, in particular by US First Lady Michelle Obama, to raise students' interests in gardening, nurture green thumbs as well as environmentalism and encourage healthy eating.
I thought such initiatives were pretty self-explanatory in terms of benefits, are pretty much non-political and non-debatable. Dawson had however found an article by a Caitlin Flanagan that expressed much disdain for school gardens, with the argument that "schools are taking kids out of the classroom" when they need to spend more time in the classroom to learn and be educated on the basics, and then eventually climb the educational system. It was something I never really thought about given Singapore's higher-quality educational system, but in America where educational standards are dropping and schools struggle to keep students interested, school gardens may backfire in their intentions as well.
Statistics so far appear to indicate that school gardens have somehow helped boost grades and "understanding of lessons", probably indirect effects of being involved in a garden. It might perhaps create interest in staying in school, or create opportunities to pick up skills such as organisation, leadership and responsibility which would be useful both in lessons and outside of lessons. Unfortunately, the school gardens initiative has caught on with political posturing and people are lambasting the educational system and those who implement the initiative. At least Flanagan's arguments were not exactly without merit, but it appears that Dawson is implicitly pointing fingers at politicians who are blaming the school gardens initiative to their advantage.
There's really plenty to learn from school gardens, in terms of skills and knowledge. Where your food comes from, how to eat healthily; children need to know given that they now live in a very much urban society where food is convenient and global and they do not know where their food comes from, what they should eat, how much they should eat and so on. Again, I am reminded of the book 'The End of Food' by Paul Roberts that I am currently reading about and will review in due time. Links to other articles about the school gardens argument are in The Daily Green article.
When Economics clashes with (Geo)politics
By Wei Seng
First published in The New York Times on Wednesday, Thomas Friedman writes about the low likelihood of a "benign 2010" given the economic and geopolitical conditions currently brewing. I read the reprinted article on mypaper on Thursday and was rather amused by his arguments.
He started off by saying that 2009 was a pleasant surprise for being a rather peaceful year for "the world's biggest economies" to heal without any major wars or political / geopolitical disruptions, and then asserts that 2010 would probably not be as peaceful. I do not really agree with him about the "three major struggles" we face (the banks vs President Obama, China vs Google & Iran vs the world), but he has managed to make rather substantial arguments.
Struggle 1: The banks vs President Obama
I did not quite think that this was a significant issue, but that is probably because Singapore is / was pretty sheltered from the full force of the economic breakdown in the West. At least in Singapore, the banks appear to be in rather good shape. But Singapore still bore some brunt from the crisis, thanks to our open economy. I will not go into an argument about how globalized our economy should be (suffice to say that I am for globalization, but not the "free-for-all" some Republicans seem to want) but I must agree that banking regulations need to be stiffened. President Obama has a very tough job balancing giving free rein to the banks to operate and continually grow their wealth (and hence America's economy too) and managing expectations that as president he should be concerned more about his people who are suffering as a result of the folly of these bankers (and hence should punish the bankers). Either way, this tough balancing act is going to take much more than just "change we can believe in" or "yes we can" as President Obama promised before becoming president. His actions will have direct or indirect impact on the WHOLE world.
Struggle 2: China vs Google
Again, I never thought of this as a huge issue too, but it must certainly be one of much concern to quite a few if columnists keep writing every day about the relations between China and America and whether the trough in relations they are going through marks a change in tact or just posturing. The G2 (Group of 2 - China & America) notion aside, the assault on Google was certainly daring and bellicose. I am more inclined to side with Google and America, but you must also take into consideration the views of millions (of Chinese netizens) that the Chinese government have to assuage and calm. Many of them see the China-bashing as unwarranted and colonial bullying that is behind the times given the ascendant status of China, so I do not foresee that China and America's retaliatory actions are going to end at just sanctions. I sure hope they do things calmly though... recall the saying "when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled".
Struggle 3: Iran vs the World
Now this is an issue that I think people do not believe is a sufficiently major problem. Iran's nuclear proliferation will be very dangerous to America as well as the world, and it will derail all the economic efforts put in by the world's major economies given the potential changes it will cause to the geopolitical arena. This I think would be the most difficult struggle to resolve, given the ramifications that could spillover into the economic and social spheres (e.g. war). Unfortunately, given all the other problems that America and the world is facing now, it is inevitable for the Iran issue to be placed on the back-burner. But there must be understanding that neglecting the Iran issue and letting it fester will not make it any easier to solve.
I echo Friedman's wishes that "cooler heads prevail" this year. Or else, as he says, "fasten your seat belts".
China’s Green Revolution
By Wei Seng
Green Power
China, as an emerging superpower, is also said to be emerging as one of the biggest polluters of the environment. The industrialisation and modernisation of China in particular is of great concern for climate change / global warming, as China looks scheduled to overtake the United States as "the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide". Gary Dirks and David G Victor, in Newsweek's Special Edition - Issues 2010, suggests that China is making attempts to go green, not just to allay global concerns but to allay domestic concerns as well.
China is concerned about its growth, not so much because it is bothered by how other countries (both developing and developed) perceive it. It is more because of the environmental problems that have plagued its growth that makes it realise the importance of being green. "Severe pollution and worries over dependence on fossil fuels" are just some problems of national security that concern the Chinese government, and it is doing what it can by enhancing energy-efficiency and attempting to move away from fossil fuels. It cannot probably move away entirely from coal because of its abundance and cheap price, but China is making efforts to make coal "less polluting".
China is also investing in new technologies, such as clean renewable energy research, that could potentially open up a new market for such products as well as cement China's position as an industrial leader in a new field that is yet untapped fully in most other countries. The Telegraph in an earlier article in May observes some changes to what China is doing in this new field. However, China would require the help of other developed countries in the West in managing its research and development.
All these will add up to "a massive impact on greenhouse-gas pollution", and such efforts are certainly laudable and commendable. It is, however, important, for China to lead not just locally but globally. As a rising superpower, it is "ready to lead when it starts playing offense in climate talks as well as defense", and China needs to prove that "it can cut emissions", which will then assuage global concerns as well as debunk the West's "excuse for doing nothing" because of "Chinese inaction".
Other writers and newspapers have weighed it on China's "Green Revolution". The Guardian details some targets set by Chinese officials on adoption of renewable energy sources, while Thomas Friedman in The New York Times writes about how "red China" is becoming "green China". There appears to be much regarding what China is doing for the environment, even if it might seem miniscule, so the United States should certainly do its part and contribute more than "business as usual", given its current superpower status (which it might soon lose to China if it does nothing to stem the decline).
America’s greatest risk: Terrorism or itself?
By Wei Seng
Itself...
In Newsweek's Special Edition - Issues 2010, Stephen Flynn writes about how America's greatest risk is itself: the danger that the American government will overreact to the terror threat, and hence disrupt how America has been operating all this while.
Flynn argues that "the greatest peril today is not of an attack but the danger the country will overreact". A terrorist attack might make huge headline news and cause much panic and trouble, but it seems like the government is in the meantime neglecting other disasters that could potentially claim as many, if not more, lives. For instance, hurricanes and earthquakes or even H1N1 and avian flu. The threat of terror certainly remains, but overreaction could cause huge trauma on top of the damage already done by the terrorists. The blockade of the US economy thanks to the grounding of all flights and closing of all borders post-911 would have accomplished exactly the economic damage that the terrorists aim to inflict upon America.
Flynn then proposes that the government should abandon the "muscular but unrealistic 'protection at all costs' approach". Bush may have claimed that "terrorists need to get things right just once, the nation's defenders have to be right 100% of the time", but this is an "impossible standard" since no government in history has ever accomplished this. Singapore may be close to this, but only in recent history: one only needs to think back to the Konfrontasi period in the 1960s when the Indonesians struck the McDonald House to recall that Singapore has not been exactly immune to acts of terror (in particular, one inflicted by the government of an opposing force).
In essence, the government needs to get the citizens involved and not just be the big nanny and take charge if and when terror strikes. Flynn states that "terror works only if it convinces people they are vulnerable and powerless", so if the government can give people ways to "address their vulnerabilities", terrorism might not be as "terrifying" as perceived to be. The citizens should "share the responsibility for preparing the nation to cope with man-made and natural disasters", so that people will become better able to "withstand, recover and adapt to catastrophic risks".
Topics
- Anecdotes
- Article Featured
- erpz News
- Headlines
- Lifehack
- Mind Tricks
- Reading Packs
- Reviews
- Stuff
- Tackling Tests
Study Resources
- Caught In Geog
- Cliffs Notes
- Economics Help
- Fiveless A Levels Notes
- Mastering Maths
- Mises Institute
- Mr Koh's Maths Site
- Progress in GP
- SparkNotes
- Tutor2u
Friends' Sites & Blogs
Writer's Blogs
- Dan Gilbert's Blog
- Freakonomics Blog
- John Kay
- Julian Baggini's Blog
- Malcolm Gladwell
- Michael Perelman
- Paul Krugman
- Robert Skidelsky
- Tim Harford
Academic Blogs
- Becker Posner Blog
- Daily Capitalist
- Marginal Revolution
- Modeled Behavior
- The Good News Economist
- Tran Harry Economics 101
- Twenty Cent Paradigms
Recent Comments
- Morality & Incentives « ERPZ on The Question of Pay
- Kevin on The Question of Pay
- Derrick Tan on The Question of Pay
- Daily SG: 8 Sep 2011 « The Singapore Daily on Failure of Competition
- georgeyeo -not that guy on From Sarcasm to Absurdum