Some thoughts from Bob Dylan about living in fear.

While traveling last week, I started reading Bob Dylan's Chronicles: Volume One. In the early chapters, he weaves accounts of his early days in NYC and recollections from his childhood. His words were particularly poignant in one excerpt, where he recalls Cold War era grade school air-raid drills:

"It seemed peculiar. Living under a cloud of fear like this robs a child of his spirit. It's one thing to be afraid when someone's holding a shotgun on you, but it's another thing to be afraid of something that's just not quite real. There were lots of folks around who took this threat seriously, though, and it rubbed off on you. It was easy to become a victim of their strange fantasy. I had the same teachers in school that my mother did. They were young in her time and elderly in mine. In American history class, we were taught that commies couldn't destroy America with guns or bombs alone, that they would have to destroy the Constitution - the document that this country was founded upon. It didn't make any difference, though. When the drill sirens went off, you had to lay under your desk face down, not a muscle quivering and not make any noise."

Newsweek's "The Case for Killing Granny"

Last week's issue of Newsweek magazine had several very interesting and informative articles about health care issues. As I was traveling for the last ten days, and not writing, I had a chance to do some reading. I thought the articles in that issue provided some insight and statistics that seem to have been overlooked in the popular rhetoric.

The front page feature, "The Case for Killing Granny," discussed aspects of end-of-life care. Get past the controversial title - the article itself is not particularly radical. The gist of the piece is that, as a culture, we fear death instead of embracing it as a natural part of the life cycle. That perspective has a dramatic effect on the steps some people choose to take to fight it. Compounding the issue is the fact that death is not something people want to discuss, particularly their own; thus, those close to death are generally ignorant of what the process will be like. As the Newsweek piece points out, this leads to one-third of annual Medicare expenditures going to chronically ill persons.

Go ahead and call me a cold-hearted bastard, but I do believe that with a change in perspective and some real discussion about what we can expect near the end of our days here on earth, we can not only solve some of the financial issues plaguing the U.S. health care system, but we can also bring some comfort and understanding to the issue of dying. As a person who, over the past year, has been face-to-face with mortality, I can tell you that there will never be a cure for death. No matter how far or fast we run, it will catch us all in time. Why not spend those sunset days of our lives enjoying what we can because we have knowledge and we have planned for what is to come?

See other readers' reactions to the article as well.

Newsweek also ran a piece last week comparing health care systems in other western nations - "No Country for Sick Men." I do not have quite the passionate reaction to this article, but I did find it very interesting. I will point out a theme to look for: challenging the idea that the quantity of health care available in the U.S. means that Americans receive the best quality health care. Particularly for the price. Newsweek claims that in a few years, twenty percent of the U.S. GDP will be spent on health care. One-fifth of the money paid for goods and services in the U.S. will be for health care expenses. Think about what that does to discretionary spending, particularly in the middle class. How will we ever make an economic recovery?

Read the articles.

Keep an Eye On...

"Bennett and Romanoff: Two of a Kind"

Whichever party line you vote along, keep an eye on the potential for a Democratic primary for the senate seat vacated by now Interior Sec. Ken Salazar. The primary will not resolve the question of who should have received Gov. Ritter's original appointment to the seat. It could, however, have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome of the 2010 election. Aside from the potential division among Colorado Democrats, a primary could give the GOP challenger plenty of fodder for his/her attack ads during the election season. The primary could also force the candidates to move either left or right of their traditional left-center stances and, as Haley points out, force Sen. Bennett to clarify his positions on controversial legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill he has yet to take a firm stance on.

The Water Footprint

I. The Water Footprint

At a recent conference in Stockholm, Dutch engineer Arjen Hoekstra presented his idea of a water footprint. Similar to the carbon footprint concept, the water footprint attempts to quantify impact in terms of water use and pollution. Hoekstra's footprint accounts both for direct use of water as well as "virtual use" - water used to produce goods consumed. While the carbon footprint remains a bit ethereal, water quantities seem more tangible. Thus, the water footprints Hoekstra generated for some common products are astounding and troublesome - a cup of coffee requires 140 liters (almost 40 gallons) of water; 2,400 liters (~634 gallons) for a hamburger; and 10,000 liters (over 2,600 gallons) of water for a pair bluejeans.

As I have noted previously, assessing the real environmental impact of our activities, lives, or the goods we consume requires a comprehensive analysis, one that is not simply limited to carbon or water. However, I qualified that statement by saying that effective measures must be quantifiable and accessible and that concepts like the carbon footprint are one step in making that comprehensive analysis relatively quantifiable. The water footprint is another building block. Some weighty corporations and organizations - The UN, Nestle, Pepsi, the World Wildlife Federation - have bought into the concept. As its use becomes more widespread, the water footprint will permit a more in-depth environmental analysis of activities, products, and services.

The advent of the water footprint is also quite timely. Even if its unidimensional analysis in inherently limited, as I argued in regard to the carbon footprint, the water footprint will help to spotlight the current worldwide water use paradigm, for which "unsustainable" does no justice. Hoekstra contends that his virtual water quantification could help remedy this situation. Thinking in terms of virtual water - the amount of water consumed or polluted in producing particular goods - nations can quantify the water impact of their imports and exports.

Hoekstra's aim seems to be to eliminate agriculture in all arid (or otherwise unsuitable) regions of the world; he would rather see import and export trade offs, measured in terms of virtual water. However, his water footprint, by nature, does not account for other consequences of such a change - the effects on local, regional, and national economics; the environmental impact of then necessarily transporting crops and goods across the globe, just to name a few. Even with those shortcomings, the fact that such conversations are now on the table is encouraging. I do believe that, one day soon, Mother Earth will cast off the bounds of technical innovation that man believes have subdued her. The global community should anticipate and prepare for that series of events, rather than react as they occur.

II. Water in the U.S.

Thinking about water use and pollution, I also want to turn briefly to water in the U.S., a situation some have described as a crisis. On this site, I have specifically mentioned the battle over water supply to Atlanta, and while that particular scenario has made headlines in the past year, it is not unique. In a guest column to the Washington Post, Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona, says simply that the "U.S. water supply is running out." He cites several possible solutions - desalinization, reuse of municipal waste water, stringent conservation; he also recognizes that none of these on their own would solve our problems.

Glennon makes two general observations that I want to highlight. First, he characterizes the U.S. water "shortage" in terms of the water:population ratio. In addition to depleting ancient and slow-to-replenish aquifers, U.S. water demand grows as the populations continues to increase. Like many other environmental problems, water issues emanate from the simple concept of carrying capacity - an expression of the population that a particular habitat can sustain. As Glennon points out, there are several means by which to mitigate the U.S. water supply concerns - finding new sources (desalinization); reuse (i.e., reuse of wastewater); reducing use. But none of these represents a singular fix, and they each come with their own drawbacks. Without me saying anything else on this topic, you can all infer that the conversation becomes much more difficult and controversial from this point . . . .

The second of Glennon's points that I want to emphasize is the commoditization of water in the U.S., or, more appropriately, the lack thereof. Certainly, water rights are bought, sold, bartered for, and exchanged by municipalities, corporations, and private parties. But end users pay fees that essentially cover utility providers' operation costs. In other words, the water itself is free. Glennon likens increased water fees to surges in gasoline prices. During the last peak in gasoline prices, sales of fuel efficient cars spiked, public transportation ridership increased, and many people chose to drive less when possible. Glennon posits that increased fees for water usage would spur similar conservation efforts as individual users sought to save money. (This is a concept I have also advocated; see "The Future of Atlanta's Water Supply.")

The take-home point of this post is that water's place an environmental concern should not be overshadowed by other hot-button issues. This is true both in the U.S. and across the globe. As I usually do, I will remind all readers that each of us can do our part to chip away at these crisis situations by being conscious and thoughtful in our daily activities.

States Seeking Federal Funds for Rail

In contrast to the Alabama highway project I highlighted recently (See "Federal Highway Funding Going to 'Wrong Places'"), many other states are seeking to capitalizing on federal funding opportunities to maintain, upgrade, and expand their rail networks. I hope to see more reports of this type of state and local government recognition that "balance" in transportation options is a worthy investment and a characteristic that residents find both useful and desirable.

"States Seek Slice of Rail Funding", Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2009

"Maryland Seeks $360 Million for Rail Upgrades", Baltimore Sun, August 25, 2009

Federal Highway Funding Going to "Wrong Places"

In my post about obstacles to public transportation in the U.S., I talked about incentivizing alternative transit options for commuters. A corollary to that concept is promoting transportation policy through funding. But federal highway funding policy threatens to keep the country locked in the status quo for some time to come.

The PBS segment highlighted in this report from Next American City magazine discusses a particular project included in the Appalachain Highway Development System, a federal program that matches federal to state dollars $4:$1 for included highway projects. As highlighted in the video clip, authorization for the Northern Beltway around Birmingham was included in federal legislation and largely bypassed local planning and projection processes. From the comments of Birmingham's Mayor Larry Langford, its clear the project faces some pushback from local government: "Yes, we can get from point A to point B but now what we are doing is cycling traffic around because of the grandiose idea that ‘we need more interstates.’ No, we don’t need more interstates—we need high-speed public transportation. But we’re always spending our money in the wrong places."

Aside from these specific issues, including the demolition of homes along the beltway's proposed route, projects such as this raise questions about the effectiveness of federal funding priorities. It seems clear from Mayor Langford's comments, as well as those of a local real estate developer, that Birmingham could use federal assistance in a number areas within the city itself. Rather than helping to fund urban renewal projects or stimulate economic growth within Birmingham, federal funds - 80% of 3.3 billion dollars, according to PBS - will instead go to highway project cutting through undeveloped portions of the surrounding countryside.

All of this is occurring at a time when the Obama administration, at least in words, is attempting to dramatically alter the general transportation policy of the United States. Certainly an appropriate starting place would be examine who federal transportation are allotted and awarded and how those programs affect the decisions of state and local lawmakers.

Health Care Reform, Government Intervention, and Zombies

Paul Krugman's column in today's N.Y. Times directly confronts government intervention critics. Countering the variety of claims, many of which are unsubstantiated and vague, that a government-sponsored insurance plan would spell dire consequences for the health care system, Krugman asserts that a lack of government regulation is to blame for many of the issues making current headlines. Because of these failures, Krugman asserts that the government-is-bad, Reagonomic philosophy should have already died. Instead, it lives on a "zombie doctrine" and remains a powerful, even if just rhetorical, argument in the debate over health care reform.

Krugman's column also reminds me of the need to cut through the emotionally-charged language and political lingo to examine the real nature of possible solutions along with their probable benefits and consequences. Perception without insight can be deceptive, and many of our public figures capitalize on that idea. (See "A Soapbox Moment.") Therefore, we as the public must be conscious of what we hear, resist the urge to take it at face value, and examine the ins and outs of these important issues on our own.

Public Transportation Funding

This article highlights an issue I raised in a recent post regarding public transportation in the United States. In the midst of a push from the federal government to expand public transportation in many areas, transit agencies are having difficulty funding daily operation of existing services. As I noted in my previous post, funding issues can and will strike at crucial aspects of public transportation - cost effectiveness to the rider, convenience to the rider, and reliability - three issues that are absolutely necessary for building public support and use of any transit system.

Expansion projects certainly fit within the "economic stimulus" package, and beginning to change the transportation profile of the U.S. is an admirable goal, the federal administration must be sure existing transit agencies are able to maintain services, quality, and value. Otherwise, the foundation necessary for expanding transit options in this country will be sorely lacking.