“Since we live in a moving world and change
with our interaction in it, every act produces a new perspective that demands a
new exercise of preference.” – John Dewey
"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of
pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive
others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper
guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind
are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to
themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." –John
Stuart Mill
Frodo: “I wish none of this had
happened."
Gandalf: “So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for
them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given
to us.”
– Lord of the Rings
Soda, Oil, Ivory….What do they all have in common? Well, they have all been major headlines in
the news over the past month, but they also represent a critical debate about
the role of government as we work to negotiate our social contract with our
political leaders. Additoinally, they all
represent a theme of supply, demand, and the consequences of over-consumption. For
soda, a ban might be too much; for ivory, a ban seems appropriate, but not
enough; for oil, more restrictions are certainly needed.
On September 13, 2012, the NYC Board of Health voted to
accept and implement a ban on the sale of large sodas at food preparation
venues under the city’s regulation. This
ban has been framed as a step in the fight against obesity, but it was also
viewed as a paternalistic over-stretch of government power. Further, public debate
on the issue was severely limited, as was the opportunity for health education
that could have been facilitated through such debate. The evidence that such a ban on the sale of
large sodas in a limited set of venues will have the intended goal of
decreasing the number of over-weight and obese individuals living in NYC is
quite equivocal. Beyond this, though, is the question of how much the government
should intervene in the private food choices of the populace. Where do we draw
the line?
In May of 2012, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs
held hearings on a dramatically increasing trend of elephant slaughter in
sub-Saharan Africa, fueled by the global demand for ivory. In 1989, the world implemented a ban on the ivory trade in a, largely effective, attempt to protect these magnificent
creatures from a brutal slaughter. This resurgence
is not only disturbing for those of us who feel empathic pain for elephant
families, and who want to protect the elephants for our own happiness and for future generations. As pointed out in a blog by a colleague I studied with,
the politics surrounding this slaughter have dramatic implications for the
humans and communities who are quite literally caught in the cross fire; and there are deeply rooted economic, cultural and religious motivations at play. The
policy solutions here will not be simple to construct or implement.
In November of 2012, the U.S.A will elect or re-elect its next
president. The rhetoric of the public debates leading up to this election tell
a dramatic story about how corporations dictate our democratic process, and the
way we conceptualize individual rights and our collective responsibility to
protect the environment and the world in which we live. Sadly, as outlined
in a recent NY Times article, the debate about energy policy in the mass media
has turned in the favor of fossil fuel consumption and the protection of the
oil industry. This, despite all the evidence regarding fossil fuel consumption in
relation to the present and impending climate change. How much power does the
corporation really have in relation to the individual and collective voice of
the citizenry?
The truth is that the lines of appropriate government
intervention are very, very grey and paradoxes abound. The ability of democratic
governments and policy makers to design and pull the right levers at the right
time for a positive, synchronized impact has been historically inconsistent at
best. There is a time and place for direct government regulation and enforcement
in the market, a time for public education and behavior change interventions,
and a time for restricting the influence of powerful stakeholders in order to
create a more open and honest discourse.
The consequences and benefits of these actions varies greatly and is
sometimes unpredictable, but we will all feel the impact of these government policies.
There simply is no one-size-fits-all policy model for every policy problem – it
is a delicate balance. In these three examples, however, it is clear that we
have not achieved the healthy and appropriate balance of government intervention
and public debate at the local, national or international levels.
For myself, I have never been a soda-drinker, but I am a
resident of NYC and a public health professional. In a limited resource environment, the
question for me has become – Why are we spending this kind of time, money, and
energy creating and enforcing this soda ban when the city of New York has much
bigger issues to tackle, with strategies that could be much more effective? For example, more resources could go to the
improvement of public education and equitable access to safe and high quality
schools throughout the city. I am not convinced this is the right political process,
intervention, time or place for this type of government action. Perhaps, if managed strategically, this will ignite a broader
debate on a national- and international-scale about the food industry as a whole, which would be a good thing.
I love elephants and can’t imagine a world without them and
cry every time I read an article about this slaughter. However, I also care very much about the impact
of political instability, human rights, and fair and equitable justice as a
part of law enforcement when protecting elephants. This is a problem that requires discourse with
local communities in both Asia and Africa to address demand and suppliers, alongside global cooperation for the
strategic policy construction and training for appropriate enforcement at
local, national and international levels. This is both a security and environmental problem that is context-specific. As with the oil industry and the food industry, it is clear that no singularly-designed intervention is enough and that sustainable solutions will always require concerted diligence and creativity.
I am very concerned about the environment and the climate
change we are seeing. I believe the
regulation of the energy industry is essential and is the appropriate role of
government. This is a crisis. In many
ways the clock has already run out and we don’t have time for a prolonged capitalist
vs. socialist debate. The type of
so-called paternalism seen with the Bloomberg soda-ban might be appropriate
when it comes to protecting the environment and more intensively regulating the
fossil fuel industry.
What the intersection of these three issues demonstrates,
for me, is that policy discourse remains very much dependent on the underlying
philosophical perspectives, and egos, of the discussants (I know…SHOCKER!); and, less so, on the specifics of the policy issue and the available, pertinent knowledge to assist in addressing the issue. Which leads me to explicitly state my biased
philosophical perspective: We are all very much interconnected by an intricately
woven natural, economic and political environment. Thus, we should remove the “us”
vs. “them” discourse from our social contract negotiations with the government
if we want to see real progress. Let’s
embrace our freedom to demand, through our words and actions, policies that are
effective in achieving healthier and more productive outcomes for society and
individuals; regardless of how these policies fit into the prescribed packages
of “right and wrong”, “liberal or conservative”, “progressive or traditional”, “capitalist
or socialist”.
