weekly response

Bringing Back Earmarks
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

In an unusual moment of bipartisan legislation, the Senate has passed a transportation bill that would allocate $109 billion to the construction of roads, bridges, and transit infrastructure. If House Republicans support the bill, we will have secured two years of funding for construction projects.

Subsidies and the End of Oil
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

If only because I read (the print edition of) Ranger Rick as a little boy, I have long taken for granted that oil companies are greedy, heartless, and dangerous for the health of our planet. Glossy spreads of charismatic megafauna and a bright future powered by sun and wind inspired my young convictions.

I'd like to think that my views are a bit more sophisticated today; I understand that we need oil in the near-term. But my distrust of fossil fuels and the lords of the extraction industry remains, and I can't help but expect that some day, maybe in my own lifetime, we will no longer depend on their opiate.

Environmentalists, scientists, and some politicians have been saying for decades that we need to invest in alternative forms of energy. This drumbeat reached a fever pitch in the summer of 2010 as the events of BP's Deepwater Horizon explosion unfolded. 24-hour submarine video feeds dominated the airwaves. Members of Congress lambasted BP CEO Tony Hayward and delivered impassioned soliloquies in defense of the spill victims. In the wake of the worst environmental catastrophe of our nation's history, the case against Big Oil was laden with populist fury and disgust over the industry's latest disaster.

To speak in defense of the oil industry was not a political option (as Rep. Joe Barton quickly discovered). It seemed that, perhaps, we had reached a tipping point that would require lawmakers to clear the path for alternative energy's emergence as a big business in its own right.

Today, President Obama rides what remains of this sentiment and invests his political capital in the inevitability of a green energy revolution. Oil companies don't deserve taxpayer money, he contends. They are wealthy enough already, and we need to look towards a green, sustainable future.

In his argument, the President does not announce outright that he hopes to see the oil industry recede and, ideally, transform into a producer of alternative energy. (Such a transformation would probably be necessary in order to avoid massive loss of employment.) His omission of this position leaves him vulnerable to the legitimate criticism that he is unfairly singling subsidies to the oil industry. Their tax relief is like that of any other big business, and as a result, his argument that oil companies don't need our money, while true, isn't particularly compelling. A more salient point would be that, in the interest of national security, economic viability, and concern for the environment, the oil industry needs to end.

In other words, the government should not pay for what it does not need and does not want. Even if government would, in the end, lose revenue - a very possible outcome - President Obama needs to make the case that this would be a worthy sacrifice.

Oil subsidies are not unique or especially heinous aside from the industry they maintain. If President Obama wants to get rid of them, he needs to move beyond the populist argument that oil CEOs are filthy-rich scoundrels and focus on the fact that the oil industry is what tethers our economy and our environment to the dirty 20th century.

Russia Upon a Threshold
By Jared Nourse

Vladimir Putin is back in the office he built. Depending upon who you ask, that could mean a variety of different things. Ask the majority of Russians, and they'll tell you it's a very good thing. Putin represents stability in Russia - the kind of stability that can bring you out of a decade of not knowing when you'll get your next paycheck. Stability is a brand in Russia, a political ideal so high it is unthinkable to challenge, and so Putin found it easy to market himself.

But across the country, there are some remarkable indicators that after 12 years of Putin’s rule, all is not well. Corruption remains unchecked across the country. A guarantee to the rule of law depends on who you are. Life expectancy is a mere 66.46 years, lower than every other post- Soviet country except Tajikistan. Russians die younger than North Koreans. The population is shrinking and the economy is still all too dependent upon natural resources. The education system is failing, and opportunities are still largely available only to those with connections or money.

These problems get a lot of lip service from Putin. But rather than addressing the nation's systemic issues that cause these problems, he prefers to build or exaggerate threats to the Russian people and arrange a decisive response. In fact, Putin’s statism relies on these systemic issues: selective rule of law allowed for control of television and opposition, while corruption gets a wink and a nod for the loyalty of the security services.

The results have had a startling impact on the minds of young Russians. Corruption is considered a fact of life in Russia; if you get stopped, you pay the bribe. It’s a natural economic transaction, a friend explained. "Russians expect it. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s just the way it is. Nichevo sdyelat'. There’s nothing to be done."

Schoolchildren beyond a certain age turn to private tutors if their family can afford it. A friend once described to me her English classes at school: "Usually, we go over the homework and then we speak in Russian." The other day, her teacher had given a lecture on politics in Russian to the effect that the only important thing in politics was good looks. Nothing else mattered.

Putin is very handsome, or so it is said.

There are bright spots in schools, of course, but students rely on outstanding individual teachers because they can't on the system. When it comes to finding a berth for higher education, students have the option to pay school administrators to change their all-important test results and improve their chances. It's a discouraging system.

Young Russians have found a way to explain the inequality of Putin’s Russia. Eto Rossiya, they say. This is Russia, it means, but it also means a lot more. This is Russia, it means, and we have some big problems. But this is Russia, nichevo sdyelat'. There’s nothing to be done.

Cynicism runs very high among young Russians. The political arena is a dirty place and if you're honest, you stay out. Our leaders may lie and steal, but so do all of yours, they say. It's a myth that happens to be particularly convenient for the regime, so it's promoted both directly and indirectly. When people think everyone steals, they're more likely to roll over for you.

Some Russian teenagers have been turning to suicide to deal with the problems that this structure causes them, an issue that has been getting more attention of late. But the greater part just wants to leave. I once asked my closest Russian friend how many of her own friends wanted to move to other countries. "Oh, not that many," she replied. "Maybe fifty percent." And they've done their research, too. America can be difficult to get into. Chances are better with Australia, Canada, or a number of Western European countries.

But in the meanwhile, young Russians are also discovering a voice of their own. Finding issues that they care about, they are surprised to learn that they can be heard. As they do, they see how the effects ripple out and change their surroundings, not in ways that threaten the stability that Putin built, but in ways that begin to address the problems he’s failed to address. The actions are simple: attending a rally to express dissent, getting together with a group of friends every week to discuss not problems, but possible solutions, even just spending time every week taking care of street animals. My friends and students did all of these things and more during the time I spent in Russia, contributing what they could towards the growth of civil society in Russia.

With practice, and despite the odds against them, young Russians are slowly disproving that great myth, nichevo sdyelat'. With time, what they do in greater numbers every year will give a new meaning to another phrase, as well. Eto Rossiya, they will say, and it will mean, “This is Russia. Look, this is the Russia we built for ourselves.”

Jared Nourse has worked as an English teacher in Vladimir, Russia, and he is currently exploring other regions of the former Soviet Union. He graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Political Science and a concentration in Leadership Studies. Jared's post is part of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!

Our Ball and Chain
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

It is astonishing that President Obama needs to convince us that energy efficiency is an important priority. His argument is clear and basic, and he presses on.

Of course, funding (and fear of the unknown, but that's another story) is a big part of why the nation isn't rallying around this cause. President Obama is correct that investment in clean energy would pay manifold dividends in the near future. But we must also, for example, mend our archaic system of education, riddled as it is with perverse incentives and slack. As we lag behind other developed nations in science and math, can we afford to ignore this expensive problem? Must we choose, or do we have enough cash on hand to address both challenges?

I might not be asking these silly questions had the United States not invaded Iraq in 2003. Because hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to that end, we are left bickering over whether to invest in energy, education, or nothing at all.

However, we must consider that if the United States had not invaded Iraq, we probably would have found another way to spend those few hundred billion dollars. Pressing issues - education and energy efficiency - that pertain directly to the economy and national security would most likely have been neglected anyway. So what is it about our government culture that makes such a dim fate seemingly inevitable?

In an op-ed that President-elect Vladimir Putin wrote prior to the March 4 elections, he accused the United States of  being "obsessed with the idea of securing absolute invulnerability," and announced that this is "the root of the problem." In fact, this is quite an accurate assessment. Americans are obsessed with "securing absolute invulnerability"; one might argue that this is necessarily the aim of a government, even if it is a distant dream. But because our sphere of influence is so immense and our military so vast, remaining invulnerable gets to be quite expensive and, from President-elect Putin's perspective, intolerably invasive. This would be so even if the United States were to refrain from launching wars of choice based on emotional fervor and pitifully faulty intelligence briefings.

Just as Russia is saddled with more land than any single country could possibly manage well, we have consolidated power to an extent that requires most of our economic might to maintain it. This is why we are in debt, and this is why we don't provide for our citizens at the standards of other developed nations. This is why a commitment to clean energy remains a distant dream.

The President-elect's Choices
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

In the last decade, the Russian government has expanded their web of gas and oil pipelines to such a degree that domestic production will soon be unable to maintain full export capacity. This problem will worsen as western Siberian oil fields, the wellspring of Russian oil since the 1970s, run dry. But instead of investing in new technology to extract oil from other regions, the government will continue to funnel resources into the state-owned pipeline operator, Transneft, and ambitious expansion projects. Though new pipelines will be born, they might well sit underutilized and decrepit.

The muddy economic rationale for these projects caves under the realities of Russia's rising energy needs and finite production capacity. These pipelines are built primarily to allow Russia greater geopolitical leverage and flexibility. The idea is that when a 'transit nation' hosts a Russian pipeline, that nation profits as Russian energy flows. But if Transneft and the government have options of simply doing business elsewhere and rerouting through a different pipeline, the transit nations have much less political leverage. They have a choice of either not dealing with Russia at all, or doing so according to Russia's political, economic, and military conditions.

For these strategic reasons, Russia has, and will continue to have, more pipelines than are economically viable. However, it is still possible for Russia, the world's leading oil producer, to have it both ways.

The Russian economy is quite energy intensive compared to other European nations, and its rapidly expanding auto market is a major contributing factor. Regulation of Russian auto industry standards are lax and, as a result, the potential to fill the new pipelines with oil exports is lost to domestic consumers driving inefficient vehicles. If President-elect Putin sees to fruition President Medvedev's modernization program, the Russian market might be able to function on significantly less oil and gas, thereby freeing up Russian reserves to be strategically exported.

President Obama notes that American fuel efficiency standards are tighter than ever, and the Big Three auto makers are building vehicles that produce many more miles to the gallon. This may bode well for American efforts to develop energy independence while investing in alternatives to fossil fuels. But if President-elect Putin is serious about growing the Russian economy while maintaining a sophisticated network of energy security, he will make a case to his people that the push for energy efficiency is not a Western plot connected with a global warming hoax, but rather a vital component of national security and geopolitical influence.

~

For a full analysis of Russia's energy choices, refer to Adnan Vatansever's Russia's Oil Exports (or the abstract), published in 2010 by the Energy and Climate Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Lots of backlash since my last post on what America should do about its oil addiction. Mostly on facebook and in person, acquaintances have been enlightening me with conflicting announcements of how most of America's oil is exported to China, anyway, or alternatively, around 90% of our oil is domestic, anyway, so our 'dependence on foreign oil' is largely hot air. I try to keep things factual when I can, so I'll be doing some more research to substantiate further posts, as the issue is obviously not going to slip from prominence.