Sierra's January/February 2004 Let's Talk book selection: The Great Unraveling
by Paul Krugman
Discussion questions
The Bush administration says it wants to make environmental policy smarter, but Krugman argues that what it really wants is less regulation of any kind. Is the administration anti-environmental? What are some examples and what do you think influences the administration's thinking and actions when it comes to the environment?
Are free markets and environmental protection inherently incompatible?
Krugman notes that Cheney's energy task force was convened in the midst of California's 2001 energy crisis. "It concluded, in brief, that the energy crisis was a long-term problem caused by meddling bureaucrats and pesky environmentalists, who weren't letting big companies do what needed to be done. The solution? Scrap environmental rules, and give the energy industry multibillion-dollar subsidies." What do you think was behind the energy crisis? Was Cheney right or were other influences at work?
Krugman uses the term "incestuous amplification" to explain what happened when Cheney packed his energy task force with like-minded men, mostly energy executives. Incestuous amplification is a military term, defined as "a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lockstep agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation." Is that what happened with the task force? Who would have been on your energy task force? Are there other examples of incestuous amplification in Bush administration policies?
Did conservation have anything to do with improving California's energy situation? How? Is conservation just a "sign of personal virtue" as Cheney called it, or does it have a place in a national energy policy?
In response to rising energy and gasoline prices, how has the Bush administration used market-based arguments for its pro-drilling policies? Do these arguments hold water?
Do SUVs get an unfair rap from environmentalists, or has their proliferation really had a disproportionate impact on both air quality and the price of gas?
Krugman says that "on environmental issues the administration is clearly out of step with the public. Its indifference to the fate of the planet would be quite unpopular if it were generally appreciated." Do you think this is true? If so, why don't more people know about the administration's environmental policies? How can the environment and what the Bush administration is doing to it become a priority issue in the 2004 presidential campaign? What issues are most important to bring to the fore?
In discussing Bush's "Healthy Forests Initiative," Krugman says that the "plan reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating procedure: . . . environmentalists cause forest fires, and those nice corporations will solve the problem if we get out of the way." Is Krugman being too harsh, or do initiatives like Healthy Forests or Clear Skies do the opposite of what the Bush administration says they do--protect forests and clean up polluted air? What would [I]your[/I] Healthy Forests and Clear Skies initiatives look like?
Do you think Krugman has compromised his intellectual influence by taking off the gloves and going after the Bush administration so relentlessly on issues from the environment to the war in Iraq?
