In Debt to Society

Hello Readers,

This post is more of a musing and a question-raising post than an actionable statement. My questions, which have been weighing on my mind lately, are as follows: "Is it sustainable for a society to burden students with debt?" and "Is it fair for a society to burden students with debt?"

In the US it is not uncommon for many students to take out substantial amounts of student loans (i.e. loans that can take a decade or more to pay off even with a decent job) to fund their education beyond high school. Many Europeans that I have talked to about this practice find it appalling since their systems of higher education tend to be covered largely if not solely through taxes and government subsidies. However, which system is more sustainable and more fair?

Initially, some would argue that education is a basic human right and ultimately a well-educated population results in a more prosperous society. Thus, it makes sense for governments to give anyone who is willing and able as much incentive as possible to obtain a thorough education.

In opposition to that point of view, it could be argued that without an incentive to finish one's education many people would simply "free ride" or take advantage of a free education as an excuse to avoid work. (Although from personal experience I find this argument difficult to believe.)

Further, it could also be argued that by forcing students to take out loans to cover their education, the system forces students into a social contract - an obligation to use the skills and knowledge obtained from their education for the betterment of society. Or in lieu of taking out loans this obligation could be met by the individual joining an armed services program or simply avoided by having one's parents pay for the education ahead of time. In this way, it could be argued that expensive educations are sustainable in that they bind the student to the society in which they are educated by obligating them to work at least until the loan is repaid.

However, I would argue that this is not the case. In fact, rather than creating a social contract that compels the student to use their skills and knowledge to work toward the betterment of society, the current US higher education system encourages the student to use their education to which ever means earns them the most money personally... if for no other purpose than to get by and pay off the loan! Furthermore, I would also contend that for those graduates who are interested in working for the betterment of society rather than for profit are essentially making a double payment on their social contract.

Consider that a college graduate who is working for a non-profit organization or as a public servant puts all of their efforts into improving society and must also pay off their student loans on a typically meager salary. Whereas, a college graduate who is working in a for-profit organization is working (by definition) to improve the lot of an individual or group other than society at-large but is likely making more than their non-profit counterpart. Now, some would argue that through capitalism the for-profit worker by contributing more directly to GDP is benefiting society at least as much as (and possibly more than) the non-profit worker. I do not believe it is that easy to judge. Thus, it curious that the 'market signals' for which type of career to pursue point in only one direction.

With these initial arguments laid out, I would be curious to hear what others have to say about the matter. I am ultimately undecided. What do you think? Also, if students don't pay for their own education who should? Does the benefit that society gains from a better educated citizenry mean that society should pay for the education? What type of system will better foster a more sustainable society?

Thanks,
Sean Diamond

A Timely Article...

Hello Dear Readers,

One week before my dissertation is due, I have found a timely article that briefly describes my dissertation topic: energy storage on the electric grid. If you have tried to read through my dissertation proposal or listened to me try to summarize my dissertation in person and had trouble understanding, I encourage you to read the brief article from the New York Times. Then, just understand that I am studying the impact of those technologies on the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the grid.

That's all for now. Wish me luck as I finish my dissertation!

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond


This post references the article:
Wind Drives Growing Use of Batteries
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published on July 27, 2010
In the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/energy-environment/28storage.html

Rob Hopkins TED Talk

Hello Readers,
After my last post, I stumbled upon this video. For those of you unfamiliar with the idea of the Transition Movement, this should fill you in!
Thanks,
Sean Diamond

The End is Nigh!

Hello Readers,

Admittedly, the title of this post is a bit dramatic. What I mean to say is that I am (knocking on wood) nearly finished with my master's degree. It is less than two weeks until my dissertation is due, and I am working furiously to finish it despite some minor setbacks.

Despite the coming transition, I have every intention of continuing this blog as a way to stay mentally connected to the sustainability-related causes that I have been pursuing for the past year. In fact, I hope to post information and ideas more frequently once my dissertation is complete, so please check back regularly or add me not your RSS feed or whatever it is that blog-readers do.

Finally, for the past year I have been developing the idea of founding a community-based non-profit that promotes sustainable lifestyles and choices. In particular, I was inspired by my volunteer work at the Greenhouse Trust and what I've learned about the Transition Movement. When I return to the US, I would be very interested in visiting any organizations or communities that are based on similar principles. If you are associated with such a group, please send me an email and tell me about your experience!

Thanks for following along!

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond

Afraid of being jobless?

Hello Reader,

Today, I read an article that caught my attention. For years now, I've heard the generic claim that oil companies receive absurdly large government subsidies. However, I've rarely heard "large" spelled out as a quantifiable number. Well, it turns out that "large" is apparently $4 billion per year (on average). Now, as best as I can tell from the article, that is $4 billion of real tax money that is not paid by oil industry companies to the federal government each year. This is compared to the approximately $93 billion per year (during 2006-2008) that those same companies do pay according to the American Petroleum Institute.

The argument apparently goes that without these tax incentives (aka subsidies) oil companies would move their operations to other countries. To frame this argument in another manner, without what effectively amounts to a 4% tax break (not paying $4 billion out of what would otherwise be $97 billion in taxes) all of these oil companies, which apparently provide 9.2 million jobs in the US, would move to other countries leaving Americans jobless! For some reason, I have a hard time believing that argument.

For one thing, according to NationMaster.com, which cites the CIA World Fact Book as its source, the US apparently only had 20,970,000,000 barrels of proven reserves in 2008 and was producing 8,457,000 barrels/day in 2007. Doing the math (and initially assuming constant production) this works effectively out to roughly 7 years of remaining oil production capability.

Of course, oil production is not nearly that straight forward (the closer a country gets to the end of its proven reserves the slower its production), and US oil production will likely last much longer than 7 years but at an ever-declining rate. It is also prudent to consider that proven reserve numbers are flexible in that new technologies or new wells can cause that number to increase. However, to make the long story short, the United States' ability to hold sway as a major oil producing nation is limited.

Considering that some of the subsidies now offered to oil companies in the US were implemented as early as 1913 in order to help those companies develop, it seems fitting that those same companies should start to pay back some of that start-up money before they are forced to relocate due to a shortage in supply. More importantly, it makes more sense for that money to be used to find a replacement for the oil industry, which is getting to the end of its useful life, by way of transferring the subsidies to other energy industries that are likely to last beyond the year 2100.

One example would be to redirect that money to wind and solar energy companies and manufacturers. Not only would this allow for a great domestic expansion of our current renewable energy portfolio in the US, but it might also re-engage entrepreneurs and manufacturing companies as well. This could also make for an interesting shift in dynamics considering that the majority of the world's demand for wind turbine and solar panels is currently outside of the US (with China leading the charge).

Just imagine if the United States government could muster the political will to remove the $4 billion per year oil company subsidies and divert that money to kick-start manufacturing and energy companies that would not only stay in the US (as opposed to threatening to leave) but could possibly help to reduce our trade deficit with countries like China and improve our own national utility grid! All of this in what amounts to a zero sum game for Washington politicians, the IRS, and the national debt.

Additionally, as more renewable energy generators are produced and installed, this will require some additional infrastructural support of the electricity grid (read as more jobs and investment opportunities). In turn (and perhaps in some cases simultaneously) an improved utility grid will necessarily create opportunities for reducing emissions and moving from petroleum-powered to electrically-powered vehicles.

This means that there is a way to reduce our subsidies to oil companies operating domestically, reduce our dependence on all oil companies (and countries), improve our electricity grid and our transportation system, and secure domestic jobs for decades to come. When I lay it out like that, I have to ask: Why has this not happened yet?

Is the math too obscure? Is the information that well hidden? Are lobbyist for oil companies that influential? Is the political climate in Washington that sticky? Or do Americans just want to keep giving oil companies tax breaks for fear that many more jobs will evaporate overnight?

Please, somebody set me straight!

Thanks,

Sean Diamond

This post references:
As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: July 3, 2010
In the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html