I agree that we need to change our ways in order to prevent other disasters like the oil spill from occuring. If we weren't so depended on oil, then these big oil companies wouldn't be in the position to have such a spill occur. As long as we need oil, oil companies will always be trying to get by the easiest they can to make the most profit. If we are less dependent on it, there will be less oil companies.
"Political gridlocks and black swans circling over us"Language and writing is powerful. I find the best approach in communicating is usually to speak about ourselves and use me and us in dialogue. Self reflection is important, it helps us improve behavior and become better role models. And as I have shared before, behaviors are contagious. The apology gave the article substance. Many of us have a different way of thinking and expressing our thoughts. For some colorful writing is how ideas finally become clear and concise. Through the abstract we find the "oh yeah, now I get it". Or like Friedman's article make the delivery. It just may be that an artist or a different thinker fuels a thought that inspires someones report that implements a solution.Do you think any SUV drivers, having read the article will contemplate purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle? And check him out connecting immigration into the solution. I love smart people.
I totally agree with Friedman when he says that a disaster is a terrible thing to waste.And I remember Dr. Schuhmann stating in ECN 221 that those chain emails- 'everyone strike at the gas pumps to lower costs' were superfluous- not effective. Well, maybe what we should do as 'citizens' is encourage proactive movements leading to increased awareness- thus stimulating technology for alternative energies. We could then allow the whole price mechanism scheme to fall by the wayside, and focus on real change.
This is what I found interesting: "Government’s role should be to create an environment of opportunity that taps into the innovation and entrepreneurialism that define us as Americans.”I would agree with Mr. Friedman but in my opinion our government is freezing innovation by the absurd policies they enact. If I am BP and I have a liability CAP of 75 million, why would I care about innovating and taking extra precautionary measures to prevent a disaster? My loss is already limited at 75 million - while my gains are in the billions. Now in the absence of a liability cap, BP would sure as heck make sure they were innovating and using the best drilling methods available in order to prevent any mess ups! If not the oil company is out of business with one slip-up. But once again our government chooses to play from behind and now is deciding to raise the cap to 10 billion - a little to late. If there had been no liability cap in place, the government right now can take the role of a rescuer and decide whether BP will go under by being liable for the entire disaster, or, if BP actually had good safety methods in place (and it really was just an accident), the government can pony up dollars to help them survive this mess.
That was a very refreshing article. He did a very good job of explaining the "one dollar, one vote" principle in a context that is begging for it. I hate to use the "entrenched interests" cliche, but the power of the oil lobby is fairly evident in the manner in which our government has protected them...http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1990/roll320.xml...and not a single "nay".
Post a Comment