SOC 420 Second Paper 2013 Winter: The Interactions between the Universal Market and the Social Norm of the Financial Independence of Young Adults

Xiaorui Huang

SOC 420 Political Economy
Paper 2

Instructor: Prof. John Foster

2013-Mar-4^th

Grade: A+

The Interactions between the Universal Market and the Social Norm of the Financial Independence of Young Adults

Introduction

The universal market constructed in monopoly capitalism is a nearly inescapable web entrapping its inhabitants and determining conditions of their lives (Braverman 194). The construction and expansion of the universal market lead to the destruction of family as a previously dominant social institution for production and other social activities. In this process, social norms change accordingly. One of norms formed is the financial independence of young adults from parents. Within Braverman’s theoretical framework of the universal market, I analyze the interactions between the universal market and the social norm of the financial independence[1] of young adults in the United States. On one hand, the expansion of the universal market contributes to the formation of this norm. On the other hand, this norm reinforces the expansion of the universal market in return.  

The Universal Market Promotes the Financial Independence of Young Adults

            The conquest of household manufacturing by the universal market is accompanied by a series of changes in social norms. Braverman points out that the commodification of labor and home provisions instills a “powerful urge in each family member toward an independent income” (191). In other words, the construction of the universal market encourages the formation of the social norm of the financial independence of young adults.

            The correlation between the development of this norm and the expansion of the universal market can be shown by a comparison between America and China. In America, a country has reached the maturity of capitalism with a universal market completely built, the idea of the financial independence of young adult is widely accepted and valued. According to a 2012 survey by Pew Research Center, even though the economic downturn since 2007 has significantly impaired the financial well-beings of young adults, 67% of parents and 66% of young adults in America believe that young people should achieve financial independence by the age of 22. On the contrary, in China, where capitalism did not start until 30 years ago and the universal market has not yet fully permeated, young adults are not compelled as much as their counterparts in America to make their own livings. An online survey[2] shows that only 42% of young adults agree that financial independence is an obligation for college graduates (qtd. in Yan). Another study[3] shows that in 65% of households in China, young adults at least partially rely on parents for financial support (qtd. in Zhao). 

The difference between America and China in the extents to which the norm of financial independence of young adults is accepted is correlated to the different levels to which the universal market is built in the two countries. Based on Braverman’s argument mentioned above, it is reasonable to argue that the expansion of universal market at least partially causes the formation of the norm of the financial independence of young adults.

Financial Independence of Young Adults Reinforces the Expansion of the Universal Market

            While the expansion of the universal market promotes the social norm of financial independence of young adults, this norm in return reinforces the universal market in three ways. First, it provides extra labor force for the development of the universal market. As a social norm, it compels young adults to earn their own incomes instead of receiving financial support from parents. Since the universal market either destroys or discredits nearly all its alternatives, the only way for the majority of young adults to gain income is to sell their labor in the market in exchange for wages, which fulfills capitalists’ demand for labor force.

Particularly, young adults satisfy the need for labor force by retail and service sectors during the expansion of the universal market. According to Braverman, the institutionalizations and commodification of care and entertainment of human beings, a necessary step in the expansion of the universal market, calls for a large amount of labor in retail, hospitality, and service sectors in general (194). Not a coincidence, these sectors are exactly the largest employers of young adults. Statistics show that in 2011, service, sales, and office (non-managerial) occupations together count for 64% of all jobs taken by workers between the ages of 16 and 24 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). In this sense, the social norm of the financial independence of young adults “feeds” the universal market with the inflow of young workers and contributes to its expansion.

The second way that the norm of financial independence of young adults reinforces the universal market is enlarging the reserve army of the labor. While young adults (16 - 24) meet the market’s need for low-wage labor, their unemployment rate is generally higher than other age cohorts (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). In other words, the inflow of young adults to labor market increases both the absolute number of the unemployed and the percentage of it to the whole labor force. According on Marx’s theory, the reserve army “through their active competition on the labor market, exercise a continuous downward pressure on the wage level” (Sweezy 87). Therefore, by pushing young adults into labor market and thus enlarging the reserve army of labor, the social norm of financial independence of young adults helps capitalists exploit labors in general. As a result, capitalists are further enriched and empowered. Meanwhile, workers with low wages and no savings have their subsistence tied up to their jobs, and are forced to pay tribute to the expansion of the universal market.

In addition, the social norm of the financial independence of young adults reinforces the universal market by practically replacing older members of society who are economically less active with young adults who are economically more active. In the universal market, people are primarily assigned the roles of labor and consumer. In both roles, young adults function better than older people and thus serve the interest of capitalists and the universal market better. In terms of labor, capitalists prefer younger, cheaper workers over older ones (Foster & McChesney 134). With the inflow of young adults to the labor market, capitalists can replace older workers who are deemed to be unproductive, too expensive, or difficult to control with young adults who are cheaper and more productive. Since almost all lower-end jobs have been deskilled, the inexperience of young adults becomes irrelevant or even beneficial as they are easier to manipulate. In terms of consumption, young adults are generally more consumptive than older people with the same purchasing power. This is because the sales effort and the educational process that promotes market over other alternatives (e.g. family) work more on younger generations than older ones (Braverman 191). Thus, by encouraging the inflow of young adults into labor market and allowing capitalists to constantly replace older workers with younger ones, the norm of financial independence of young adults leads to the transfer of purchasing power (i.e. wages) from older people to young adults, which then promote consumption and the expansion of the universal markets. Combining both labor and consumption sides, this norm practically encourage the replacement of older workers who are less productive and consumptive with young adults who are more productive and consumptive, which serves the interest of the universal market and the capitalists. 

Conclusion

The interactions between the universal market and the social norm of the financial independence of young adults are mutually beneficial. While the expansion of the universal market contributes to the formation of this norm, this norm in return reinforces the expansion of the universal market by providing extra labor force, enlarging reserve army of labor, and helping filter the society out all but economically active members that best serve the interests of the market and the capitalists. It is noteworthy that, however, the social norm of the financial independence of young adults is not itself evil. It is formed under the historical conditions of the expansion of the universal market, and is therefore born to serve the interests of the universal market and capitalist economy.

Works Cited

Braverman, Harry. "The Universal Market." Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century. 1974. Reprint. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998. 188-96. Print.   

Foster, John Bellamy, and Robert Waterman McChesney. "The Global Reserve Army of Labor and the New Imperialism." The endless crisis: how monopoly-finance capital produces stagnation and upheaval from the USA to China. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2012. 125-54. Print.

Sweezy, Paul Marlor. "Accumulation and the Reserve Army." The theory of capitalist development; principles of Marxian political economy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1942. 75-95. Print.

United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. N.p., 6 Feb. 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm>.

Yan, Tingting. "When do you stop receiving financial support from parents." ChinaTaizhouNet. TaizhouNet, 6 Apr. 2012. Web. 3 Mar. 2013. <http://www.taizhou.com.cn/news/2012-04/06/content_568754.htm>.

"Young, Underemployed and Optimistic | Pew Social & Demographic Trends." Pew Social & Demographic Trends - Public Opinion Polling, Survey Research, & Demographic Data Analysis. Pew Research Center, 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/09/young-underemployed-and-optimistic/1/>.

Zhao, Jian. "The analysis on the NEET group in Chinese college graduates." Shi Ji Qiao 4 (2008): 119-20. n.a.. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

---

[1] In this paper, financial independence means exclusively one person earning an income that is sufficient enough to make a living without external financial support. Other types of individual independence (e.g. producing one’s own basic needs directly) are not discussed in this paper.

[2]^{, 3} These two pieces of data have only limited credibility because the original studies from which they are extracted are untraceable. Also, the effort to search for more credible data failed. For further study, more accurate and credible data is needed.

SOC 420 First paper 2013 Winter: The Present Survival Relying on Future Death: The Sales Effort and Monopolistic Capitalism

Xiaorui Huang

SOC 420 Political Economy
First Paper

Instructor: Prof. John Foster

2013-Feb-12

Grade: A+

The Present Survival Relying on Future Death:

The Sales Effort and Monopolistic Capitalism

Introduction

With capitalism reaches maturity and monopolistic economy replacing competitive economy, the tendency for the surplus to rise becomes the principle. In this phase of capitalism, normal production and consumption mode can no longer generate enough outlets for increasing surplus, which is the root for stagnation of capitalist economy. As a result, idle capital concentrates in a few hands; productive capacity is far from fully utilized, and the whole economy suffers from chronic stagnation. The sales effort is one of the approaches developed by capitalists to stimulate demand for consumption, drive investments, and absorb surplus. According to Baran and Sweezy, sales effort is one of the most powerful factors that shape economy and other social institutions (115).

A side effect of the sales effort as a method to drive surplus absorption is the wasteful utilization of resources, which becomes increasingly significant in a long term. I argue that while it counteracts chronic stagnation of monopolistic capitalism, the sales effort will lead to depletion of natural resources and pose an ultimate threat of capitalist economy. In addition, with research and development being compromised by the sales efforts, technological progress is very unlikely to help transcend the limits of natural resources and save capitalist economy. Therefore, paradoxically, the capitalist economy replies on the sales effort, a surplus-absorption mode that will ultimately lead its death, to temporarily maintain its existence.

The Sales Effort Causes Wasteful Utilization of Resources

The sales effort under monopolistic capitalism both upsizes and speeds up the flow of goods from production phase to consumption phase, which introduces significant wasteful utilization of resources. Here I analyze three ways (although there are many others) that sales effort causes and accelerates wastes of resources.

First, the sales effort subdivides people’s needs and desires, and reduces people’s tolerance of using one product for multiple purposes. Baran and Sweezy argues that oligopolistic corporations use advertisements to “establish and maintain a pronounced difference between their products and those of their competitors” (116). One way of doing this is to subdivide people’s needs and desires and artificially create different “niches” for products with overlapping functions. A quintessential example is cosmetic products. Take lip make-up products for instances: originally a lipstick satisfies almost all needs; then cosmetic industry through advertisements introduces lip liners, lip plumper, lip balms, and lip-glosses, etc., each allegedly satisfy a unique need and is both indispensable and irreplaceable. Consumers are persuaded to buy all of them, even though there is actually great overlap of their functions. As a result, consumers demand more than what they actually need, which leads to unnecessary high level of production and resources exploitation. In this sense, by intentionally subdividing people’s needs and desires, sales efforts lead to wasteful utilization of natural resources.

Another way that sales efforts cause wasteful utilization of resources is discouraging shared use among people. For example, housing industry cites child psychologists and claims that each child needs a private room to develop individuality (Robbins 22). This advertisement discourages parents to share bedroom with children or children share bedrooms with their siblings. While the scientific validity of this advertisement remained unverified, consumers are likely to be swayed by it and tend to build or buy bigger houses, which inevitably increase unnecessary consumption as well as resource utilization.

Thirdly, the sales efforts also accelerate wasteful resource utilization through bringing future needs and desire to present, which consists two elements. First, the advertising industry creates constantly changeable fashions and encourages people to pursue these fashions. This encourages consumers to keep buying new and “fashionable” stuff to replace older ones before they wear out. In other word, the future need to replace a product after its use value depletes is replaced by a much temporally nearer need to buy new stuff when older ones’ “fashion value” deplete. Second, the “selling” industry employs credit system to enable consumers to use their future purchasing power to buy goods at present time. Since consumers’ demands are only valid if they actually make the purchase, the credit system virtually brings future needs of people to present. Both elements combined speed up the flow of goods from production to consumption. Considering the fact that such a flow involves wasteful utilization of natural resources, the sales effort accelerates the wasteful utilization created by itself.

Generally, while it can boost demand for consumption and counteract the tendency of stagnation of monopolistic capitalism, the sales effort causes and accelerates the wasteful utilization of natural resources.

Wasteful Utilization of Resources Poses An Ultimate Threat to Monopolistic Capitalism

Baran and Sweezy do recognize massive waste of natural resources as a negative impact of the sales effort; however, with their main focus on political economy, they appear to underestimate the significance of wasteful utilization of resources. They claim that “there is of course a waste of resources in such cases (i.e. the sales effort drives investment that would not take place otherwise); but in the presence of unemployment and idle capacity, these resources would have otherwise remained unutilized” (127). In this argument, Baran and Sweezy seem to indicate that unutilized resources are negative to economy, which is rather short-sighted as they fail to consider unutilized resources as necessary reserve for future development in a world with limited resources.

In my perspective, in a long term, the wasteful utilization of resources introduced by the sales effort is as significant as its political-economic function of increasing aggregate effective demand. Furthermore, while the sales effort counteracts stagnation of monopolistic capitalism, it poses an ultimate threat to monopolistic capitalism.

In the face of various global environmental issues including energy crisis and global warming, the waste of resources introduced by sales efforts have gradually manifested as a significant concern that threat almost all aspects of social lives. As the sales effort becomes an integral part of monopolistic capitalism, economy is increasingly dependent on it for surplus absorption. However, the limits of natural resources determine the unsustainability of such a surplus absorption mode.  If no intervention occurs, the final stage of a monopolistic capitalism relying on the sales effort will probably be a phase of a very high demand for consumption and very low level of production that, due to resource depletion, is far from satisfies the. Great social upheaval is foreseeable in this circumstance. Of course, when the shortage of natural resources threats the ruling class, it may take measures to adapt to it. Perhaps the sales effort will be largely cut off and frugality be promoted among lower classes. In other words, lower classes will experience a great contrast between the previously consumerist lifestyle and the later shortage of living necessities. In this case, the ruling bourgeois is likely to have difficulties keeping the lower classes under control without triggering a revolution that overthrows capitalism. In this sense, the sales efforts poses an ultimate threat to monopolistic capitalism by making it depends on wasteful utilization of natural resources and leading it to a revolution triggered by depletion of resources. However, different from the communist utopia in Marxist theory, the sales effort will leave the post-capitalist society with a world of resources shortage, which, if anything, is a dystopia. 

Inability of Technological Progress under Monopolistic Capitalism to Transcend Limits of Natural Resources

Some may argues that technological advance could solve the problem of limited natural resources and enable monopolistic capitalism continue to exist and develop with the help of the sales effort, which is highly questionable. Although human creativity and the resulted technological progress have contributed greatly to the development of human civilization, it is doubtful, if not impossible, for technological advancement to help mankind transcend the ultimate limits of natural resources. Even if there existed an ideal technological level that could help human transcend the limits of natural resources, it is unlikely to happen under monopolistic capitalism. This is because the research and development sector as a whole is penetrated and undermined by the sales effort, as discussed by Baran and Sweezy (94-95, 129-130). Specifically, the goal of capitalists who have financial capability to invest in technological research is maximizing profits, which, in monopolistic capitalism, make them favor profit-oriented researches over researches for real technological advancement. In other words, technological research in monopolistic economy is compromised to be part of profit maximizing strategies. According to Baran and Sweezy, monopolistic capitalism slows down both the introduction of innovations and the replacement of older technologies by newer ones (94-95). Moreover, through their political power, capitalists often intervene in governmental research on new technologies that may threat their profits. An example is Big Oil’s lobbies that successfully keep governmental research funding on renewable energy much lower than the subsidies to oil corporations. Thus, technological researches for real advancement in both private and public sectors are suppressed in monopolistic capitalism. Therefore, it is highly unlikely for technological progress under monopolistic capitalism to help human beings transcend limits of natural resources and save monopolistic capitalism.

Conclusion 

While the sales effort is considered effective in counteracting chronic stagnation of monopolistic capitalism, its side effect of wasteful utilization of natural resources poses an ultimate threat to capitalist economy. Specifically, the sales effort leads the monopolistic capitalism depending on it to an anti-capitalism revolution triggered by depletion of resources. In addition, with research and development being compromised by the sales efforts, technological progress is very unlikely to help transcend the limits of natural resources and save capitalist economy. By and large, the capitalist economy replies on the sales effort, a surplus-absorption mode that will ultimately lead its death, to temporarily maintain its existence. Such a paradox reaffirms Baran and Sweezy’s conclusion that capitalism is not a “socially necessary economic system” (141).

Work Cited

Baran, Paul A., and Paul M. Sweezy. Monopoly capital. N.Y.: Monthly Review Press, 1966. Print.

Robbins, Richard H.. "Constructing the Consumer." Global problems and the culture of capitalism. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1999. 11-31. Print.

PS 378 2012Summer Final paper: An Intergenerational Game: the Less-known Dimension of Climate Change

Xiaorui Huang

PS 378 Game Theory
Final Essay
2012-Aug-24^th
Grade: A+

 An Intergenerational Game: the Less-known Dimension of Climate Change

 

Introduction

Climate change has an international (or spatial) dimension[1] and an intergenerational (or temporal) dimension. The international dimension, framed by various studies as a tragedy of the commons involving different nations, become the major perception of climate change in public and political discourses (Raihani and Aitken 47-55, Wood 153-68). In contrast, the intergenerational dimension of climate change, despite certain academic coverage, is largely overlooked, which has some interesting implications on the solution to climate change as a whole (Gardiner 408, Schuppert 303-06).

In this essay, I firstly construct an extensive model of the intergenerational game of climate change. Then, based on this model and game theory, I discuss both negative and positive influences of the neglect of the intergenerational dimension on addressing climate change as a whole.  

 

The Intergenerational Game of Climate Change.

Inspired by a thought-provoking work of Stephen Gardiner, a scholar in environmental philosophy, I construct the model of the intergenerational game of climate change based on two temporal characteristics of climate change, namely resilience and deferral (403). On one hand, climate change is resilient in the sense that it takes decades for even a radical reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission to transfer into the decrease of GHG concentration in upper atmosphere. On other hand, the deferral of climate change means that our current global warming is caused by the GHG emission produced decades ago and our current emission will only affect the degree of climate change several decades later. 

In the intergenerational game of climate change, we assume generations do not overlap and each generation is a player who wants to achieve both a good economy and a decent environment[2]. Starting from the first generation, each player is firstly imposed an offer from the previous generation (if any) and then coercively impose an offer to the next generation. Players can either make a cooperative offer or a defecting offer. If Generation A imposes a cooperative offer to Generation B, it means that Generation A restricts its own GHG emission by slowing down its own economic development. If Generation A imposes a defecting offer to Generation B, it means that Generation A maintains the economic development and does not restrict its GHG emission. To quantify, we set both initial[3] economic value (EC) and environmental value (EV) as 10. A cooperative offer adds 1 point to the EC values of the generation making the offer and adds 1 point to the EV value two generations later. A defecting offer adds 2 points to the EC values of the generation making the offer and deducts 1 point from the EV value two generation later. This two-generation deferral of the environmental impacts of offers is to simulate the resilience and deferral of climate change mentioned above. EC and EV values are cumulative and are inherited from earlier to later generations. Finally, in this game, we consider EV=0 as a point of human extinction and the game will iterate until reaching this point. Figure 1 shows the game tree of the intergenerational game for the first 5 generations with the EC and EV outcomes of each generation in each strategy-path in the tables on the left.

As Figure 1 shows, when isolating a single generation and its offer-making, the outcome that this generation gets from making a defecting offer is always better than the outcome from making a cooperative offer (e.g. for the 5^th generation, its outcome in Result #3 is better than Result #4). This is because a defecting offer gives the generation that makes the offer an immediate 1 more point on EC value. Meanwhile, both defecting offers and cooperative offers do not influence the EV value of the generation that makes the offer. The economic effects are immediate but the environmental effects are deferred. Therefore, individual rationality makes each generation always prefer making a defecting offer over a cooperate offer.

            In contrast, collectively, most generations (except the first several ones) prefer the cumulative outcome of everyone cooperating over everyone defecting because a decent environment is also a goal other than the economy. Furthermore, doomsday comes when EV=0. However, individual rationality prevents cooperation from happening. Therefore, the Nash Equilibrium for the intergenerational game of climate change is that every generation defects and mankind extincts at the 12^th generation, which is represented by the all-red path in the game tree and the Result #1 in the tables.

 

Figure 1 with Result Tables -          A Red line means a defecting offer; a blue line means a cooperate offer; -          The top numbers in the parentheses are the EC value and the bottom numbers are the EV values. -          From left to right, the five pairs of parentheses are the outcomes for from 1st generation to 5th generation.

   

      Of course, limitations exist in this model due to its simplification and the inevitable uncertainties of climate change. First, generations are not discrete and they do overlap. Second, each generation lives on the planet for a substantial amount of time before and after it takes charge (i.e. childhood and old age). Third, we do not exactly know how many generations does it take to reach doomsday if no generation restricts GHG emission. In other words, the initial EV value and the quantification of the environmental impacts of offers could be questionable. Fourth, after a certain degree of environmental degradation, economic activities will be harmed, which is not shown in the model.

 

Negative Implications of the Neglect of the Intergenerational Dimension on Addressing Climate Change as a Whole

Even though certain academic effort has been done to reveal the intergenerational dimension, it is generally neglected in public and political discourses. Such neglect, partly manifested as the exclusive focus on the international dimension, have negative implications on addressing climate change as a whole.

The first negative implication is that it directs most political and academic resources to address the international dimension whose solutions are incompatible to the intergenerational issues of climate change, which crippled the comprehensive (i.e. including both dimensions) mitigation of climate change. Many studies have been done that seek for methods to encourage multilateral cooperation to solve the international tragedy of the commons of climate change (Gardiner 399-401, Raihani and Aitken 47-55, Wood 153-54). However, these methods, which include both theoretical mechanisms like building reciprocity and practical actions such as the United Nations Climate Change Conferences, are inapplicable to the intergenerational dimension of climate change because the bare co-existence of players in this intergenerational dimension (Gardiner 405). Moreover, according to Fabian Schuppert, a scholar in environmental politics, the three major schemes developed to mitigate climate change in the international dimension, namely cap-and-trade schemes, carbon emission taxes, and personal ecological space quotas, are ineffective in the intergenerational dimension. Specifically, all three schemes are centered at equal mitigation burden among all people (both intra- and intergenerational), which, given the scientific uncertainties of climate change, conveniently provides current generation excuses to push off its responsibilities and costs of mitigation of climate change to future generations (Schuppert 308-17). Thus, with the solutions for international dimension incompatible with the intergenerational dimension, the neglect of intergenerational dimension cripples the comprehensive solution of climate change.

Besides, such neglect hides from public perception the institutional inadequacy of current political structure, which lowers the bureaucrats’ and politicians’ expected utilities for supporting GHG emission restriction and therefore impair the political support for addressing climate change. The primary goal for politicians and bureaucrats is to ensure being re-elected or promoted, which is influenced by the public perception of their performance in their terms of office. However, as discussed above, climate change is resilient, which means that it takes decades (much longer than normal terms of office) for GHG restriction to realize its effects. As a result, it is impossible for a government to make perceivable mitigation of climate change within one term of office, which is the institutional inadequacy of current political structure in addressing climate change (Gardiner 403). If the public are aware of such inadequacy, they are more likely to support a pro-GHG-restriction politician whose policy appears to be ineffective in his or her term because they know it takes more time. In contrast, if the public are not aware of such inadequacy, pro-GHG-restriction politician are likely to have his or her policy be criticized as ineffective by the public and his likelihood of being re-elected decreases. In other words, politicians’ and bureaucrats’ expected utilities for supporting GHG restriction decrease when the public awareness of the institutional inadequacy is low. Since the neglect of intergenerational dimension hides the resilience and deferral of climate change from the public perception, it also lowers the public awareness of institutional inadequacy and therefore lower politician’s expected utilities for supporting GHG restriction. Consequently, such neglect impairs the political support for GHG restriction.

 

Positive Implications of the Neglect of the Intergenerational Dimension on Addressing Climate Change

The neglect of the intergenerational dimension also has positive implications on the solution to climate change, which is derived from its influences on the public’s expected utilities on addressing and not addressing climate change.  

Firstly, such neglect may somewhat increase people’s expected utility of addressing climate change by making people unaware of the deferral and resilience of climate change, for such awareness undermines their will to address it (as shown in the Figure 1). Specifically, while in mainstream discourse people do talk about the long-term effects of addressing and not addressing climate change, the fact that current actions, either restricting GHG emission or not, will not have their impacts realized until decades later is blurred by the neglect of the intergenerational dimension. Known from the game model, if people are fully aware of the resilience and deferral of climate change, it is rational for them to choose to maintain economic development but not restrict GHG emission. However, the neglect of the intergenerational dimension make the public unaware these two characteristics of climate change and therefore increases the public expected utility of and support for restricting GHG emission and addressing climate change right now.

Moreover, such neglect, when manifested as the exclusive focus on the international dimension, helps build a public perception that if we do not address climate change right now, disasters will fall upon them very soon, which decreases the expected utilities of not addressing climate change. Specifically, when focusing on the international dimension, the current disastrous impacts of climate change are highlighted. Such highlighting on disasters make people easily builds a direct and immediate causation between what they are doing now (i.e. restricting GHG emission or not) and what is happening (disasters happening or not). For example, after Hurricane Katrina attacked America in 2005 (which is not directly caused but closely associated with climate change), media coverage on climate change suddenly rises in America (Everything’s cool). In the year after, American public support for addressing climate change reached the highest point in 2000s. If the public are well aware of the intergenerational dimension of climate change, they should know that these disasters are not caused by current GHG emission and will not be mitigated by current emission restriction. However, the neglect of the intergenerational dimension enables people to develop an immediate causation between climate change and such disasters and make them less willing to leave climate change unaddressed. In other words, such neglect changes their preference by lowering the utility of not addressing climate change, which increase the public support for addressing climate change.

 

Conclusion

            The intergenerational dimension of climate change is largely overlooked in political and public discourses. To explore this dimension, I construct a model of intergenerational game, which shows a devastating Nash Equilibrium of every generation keeping GHG emission high and mankind rushes toward extinction. However interestingly, by changing the public’s and politicians’ expected utilities of addressing and not addressing climate change, the neglect of the devastating intergenerational dimension has both negative and positive implications of the comprehensive solution to climate change.             

Work Cited

Everything's Cool. Dir. Daniel Gold. Perf. Daniel Gold. Bullfrog Films, 2007. DVD.

Gardner, Stephen. "A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption." Environmental Values 15.3 (2006): 397-413. Print.

Raihani, Nichola, and David Aitken. "Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change." Climatic Change 108 (2011): 47-55. Print.

Schuppert, Fabian. "Climate change mitigation and intergenerational justice." Environmental Politics 20.3 (2011): 303-21. Print.

Wood, Peter. "Climate change and game theory." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219.1 (2011): 153-170. Print.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] In this essay, I use the term “international dimension” to denote the intra-generational, spatial dimension of climate change because in a single generation, addressing/not addressing climate change is generally considered as interactions among different countries.

[2] In the intergenerational game of climate change, the term “environment” and its quantitative value EV introduced later only refers to climate change. A higher EV value represents a LOWER degree of climate change and a BETTER environment; vice versa.

[3] Historically, the initial values could refer to the status right before the first industrial revolution

INTL 407 2012Summer Research Paper: “Indispensable Coal”: Environmentally-unjust Propaganda

Xiaorui Huang

INTL 407 Environmental Justice
Research Paper
Instructor: Prof. Braun

Grade: A+

“Indispensable Coal”: Environmentally-unjust Propaganda

Introduction 

Around half of electricity in the United States is generated from coal, which counts for 23% of total national energy supply (Storm 9). Indeed, coal has been important to America. However, its severe environmental costs make it undesirable on the list of promising future energy sources. Coal’s unpopularity drives coal industry to adopt many public relation strategies to prolong its past prosperity. The propaganda of “indispensable coal” is one of such strategies. This propaganda hinders the mitigation of coal-associated environmental injustice and further worsens such injustice by casting anti-coal organizations as groups failing America, contributing to political support for pro-coal policies, and swaying people to become market price-centered consumers who favor coal over other energy sources.

            In this paper, I will do a theoretical analysis on the impacts of the “indispensable coal” propaganda on environmental injustice.  Firstly, I briefly describe the environmental injustice caused by coal production at intra-national, international, and intergenerational levels. Secondly, I explain what the “indispensable coal” propaganda is. Thirdly, I analyze the impacts of such propaganda on impeding the mitigation of coal-associated environmental injustice. Finally, I discuss how such propaganda further worsens environmental injustice.

Environmental Injustice Caused by Coal

The impacts of the “indispensable coal” propaganda on environmental injustice directly relate to the environmental injustice issues caused by coal itself at intra-national, international, and intergenerational levels. At the intra-national level, various studies have shown that the life cycle of coal, while powering the whole America, causes environmental damages and other burdens disproportionally borne by certain groups of people like Appalachian communities (Epstein 77-85; Hendryx 541-50; McSpirit & Reid 512-16). Specifically, coal mining and coal-fired power generation cause visual, water, and air pollution in mining communities and often result in serious public health hazards. At the international level, the environmental injustice caused by coal mainly manifests as the climate injustice that is exacerbated by the huge amount of carbon emission of coal usage. For example, by indirectly increasing global temperature and aggravating sea level rise, the usage of coal in some countries accelerates the submersion of an atoll where a agricultural Polynesian community resides for centuries (There once was an island = Te henua e nnoho). At the intergenerational level, the environmental injustice of coal is also derived from its carbon emission. Since it takes decades for current emission to fully realize into the increase of carbon concentration in upper atmosphere, the usage of coal somewhat boost present economy at the expense of the severer climate change for future generations (Gardiner 403-04; Epstein 87-90).

The Industrial Propaganda of “Indispensable Coal”

Among various propaganda made by coal industry, “indispensable coal” plays an important role. Coal industry has made two arguments that promote coal as indispensable for America. First, coal industry argues that the American economy and businesses depend on the cheap electricity produced by coal in order to be competitive internationally (Storm 1, 4, 10; PRI’s The World; American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity; America’s Power). Without coal, economy will fail. Second, coal industry argues that coal is the only energy source that can power Americans’ wonderful lives at an affordable cost (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). Without coal, life expenses of Americans will rocket.

“Indispensable Coal” Hinders the Mitigation of Environmental Injustice

Both types of “indispensable coal” propaganda undermine the will of people, politicians, and governmental agencies to address coal-associated environmental injustice at all three levels discussed above.

On one hand, by claiming that American economy and businesses depend on coal, coal industry describes itself as the defender for American interests and casts those who intend to regulate coal industry and address associated environmental injustice as failing America. In a speech in the 2008 Coal Market Strategies Conference, Richard Storm, CEO of a coal company argues that “we are on the right side of the issue [by stating that coal good for America]”, “[we need to] convince other energy groups to put America’s interest first” (Storm 7, 15). Also coal industry vilifies anti-coal environmental groups and governmental regulators as “weaken America’s economic strength, our national security and the future prosperity for our grandchildren” (Storm 20). Particularly, coal industry targets Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by arguing that EPA is failing America by regulating coal industry (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). Basically, coal industry uses “indispensable coal” propaganda to constructs a public perception of “America needs coal! Regulating coal industry harms America.”

On other hand, by propagating that only coal can power Americans’ lives at an affordable cost, coal industry again portrays itself as the defender of public interests and anti-coal groups as the enemies of the public who threat the lives for Americans. In the coal commercial We Can All Make a Difference, coal industry indicates that any shifts to other energy sources will increase utility costs for American families and make their lives tougher (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). Also, Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for a coal industry group, comments on a renowned Harvard study on the externalities of coal that “ [this study] ignores the substantial benefits of coal in maintaining low energy prices for American families…,[which] are linked to a higher standard of living and better health” (Malone). Here coal industry tries to build a public perception of “American people need coal! Regulating coal industry harms Americans.”

            If the public perception is built that coal is indispensable to both American economy and people, anyone who wants to regulate coal industry and address associated environmental injustice will lose public support. Although no case-based study has been done on the correlation between “indispensable coal” propaganda and the deregulation of coal industry in the last two decades, it is likely that such propaganda plays a role in forcing the regulators to retreat. In this sense, “indispensable coal” propaganda hinders the mitigation of coal-associated environmental injustice.

“Indispensable Coal” Further Worsens Environmental Injustice

Not only undermining the mitigation of coal-associated environmental injustice, the “indispensable coal” propaganda may further worsen such injustice by actually encouraging a momentum of increasing coal usage[1].

            First, policies become more pro-coal industry under the influence of “indispensable coal” propaganda, which may potentially increase coal usage. A message implied in the “indispensable coal” propaganda is that it is righteous to use coal. Based on the fact that America has the largest coal reserve in the world, this message then encourages people to use coal to the largest extent (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). When applying to policies, such a message contributes to the political support for policies that benefit coal industry and increase coal usage. An example is the Advance Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) in Pennsylvania. Originally named as Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), this regulation was supposed to encourage the development of renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy, and biomass. However, in Pennsylvania, waste coal is included in the promotion list (Pennsylvania AEPS Alternative Energy Credit Program). According to a study by sociologists Leland Glenna and Robert Roy Thomas, in the Pennsylvania AEPS case, the past dependence on coal together with the perception of continuous future dependence contributes to the strong political power of coal industry to turn a pro-environment policy into an opportunity for further development of coal usage (862-64, 867-68). Of course, the “indispensable coal” propaganda is not solely responsible in this case, yet, theoretically it can empower coal industry with more political support to get more pro-coal policies passed. 

Second, the “indispensable coal” propaganda causes the increase of coal usage by both treating people solely as consumers and promoting the cheap market price of coal but deliberately neglecting various externalities of coal. In anecdotes described in several “indispensable coal” commercials, characters involved are only concerned about saving money from using cheap coal-generated electricity without thinking about the huge externalities of coal (Bigelow; American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). In doing so, audiences of the commercials are treated solely as consumers. And Coal, with a cheap market price, is promoted as the best energy source for consumers. Subconsciously, people tend to become what they are treated as (The Century of the Self). In this case, people as audiences of “indispensable coal” commercials tend to care about only the cheap market price of energy sources. As a result, coal usage is very likely to increase. Since coal usage causes severe environmental injustice as discussed in the beginning, the “indispensable coal” propaganda may worsens these environmental injustices by potentially increasing coal usage.

             

Conclusion

            Based on the theoretical analysis, the “indispensable coal” propaganda of coal industry hinders the mitigation of environmental injustice caused by coal because it casts those who intend to regulate coal industry as failing American economy and people. Moreover, such propaganda may further worsens the environmental injustice because it potentially leads to the increase of coal usage by getting more pro-coal policies passed and treating people as market price-centered consumers.

            Of course, this theoretical analysis is insufficient and does not provide concrete evidences for the negative impacts of the “indispensable coal” propaganda on environmental injustice. Specific case studies are called for to further explore how such industrial propaganda influences environmental injustice. 

Works Cited

Bigelow, Bill. "Scholastic Inc. Pushing Coal Propaganda to Kids." Common Dreams. N.p., 12 May 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2012. <https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/12-5>.

"Coal - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)." U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Aug. 2012. <http://www.eia.gov/coal/data.cfm>.

Epstein, Paul, Samir Doshi, Jonathan Buonocore, Leslie Glustrom, Melissa Ahern, Nancy Reinhart, Beverly May, Richard Clapp, Richard Heinberg, Benjamin Stout, Michael Hendryx, and Kevin Eckerle. "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219.1 (2011): 73-98. Print.

Gardner, Stephen. "A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption." Environmental Values 15.3 (2006): 397-413. Print.

Glenna, Leland, and Robert Thomas. "From Renewable to Alternative: Waste Coal, the Pennsylvania Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, and Public Legitimacy." Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 23.9 (2010): 856-71. Print.

Hendryx , Michael, and Melissa Ahern. "Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions: The Value of Statistical Life Lost." Public Health Reports 124.4 (2009): 541-50. Print.

Malone, Scott. " Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.-study| Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. N.p., 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2012. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/usa-coal-study-idUSN1628366220110216>.

McSpirit, Stephanie, and Caroline Reid. "Residents' Perceptions of Tap Water and Decisions to Purchase Bottled Water: A Survey Analysis from the Appalachian, Big Sandy Coal Mining Region of West Virginia." Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 24.5 (2011): 511-20. Print

"Overview." Pennsylvania AEPS Alternative Energy Credit Program. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2012. <paaeps.com/credit/overview.do >.

PRI’s The World. "US depends on coal, too | PRI's The World." PRI's The World. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2012. <http://www.theworld.org/2010/12/us-depends-on-coal-too/>.

Storm, Richard. "Enhancing Public Perception of Coal." 2008 Coal Market Strategies Conference. Storm Technologies, Inc.. Kingsmill Resort & Spa, Williamsburg, Va. 6 Oct. 2008. Speech.

The Century of the Self. Dir. Adam Curtis. Perf. Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays. BBC Four, 2002. VHS.

There once was an island = Te henua e nnoho. Dir. Briar March. Perf. Teloo, Endar, Satty. On the Level Productions, 2010. DVD.

"anon." America's Power. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2012. <www.americaspower.org/keeping-electricity-prices-low-american-business>.

"anon.." American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2012. <www.cleancoalusa.org/>.

***Special notes: When I drafted my paper in Eugene, I have cited examples of industrial propaganda from American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and America’s Power (the last two in the references list). However, when making references in China, somehow I cannot access these two websites (they might be blocked by Chinese government). Therefore I cannot get enough information to make complete references for these two websites. Apologies for any violation of rules of academic integrity.

---

[1] According to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the annual coal consumption in America had increased since 1990s till mid-2000s. It reached the highest point in 2007 and slightly decreased in the following years. Here “encouraging a momentum of increasing coal usage” means that: in the years of decreasing coal consumption, “indispensable coal” propaganda somewhat neutralizes the decrease; in the years of increasing coal consumption, “indispensable coal” propaganda reinforces the increase. Also, since it is very hard to quantify the influence of “indispensable coal” propaganda on actual coal consumption, I will only focus on the theoretical analysis of such influence.