The Wall Street Journal ran a piece yesterday that appeared to be little more than a platform for Iowa Senator Charles Grassley’s opposition to the potential government run health care option. Grassley “used the Canadian health-care system as a foil, decrying what he said were long wait times. He echoed many other Republicans” by painting a picture of Washington bureaucracy standing between people in need of care and their doctors.

The media coverage of the health care issue has been sensationalism at its worst, and I think has skewed the perception of the issues. Yes, the right wing has consolidated its problems with the legislation, and has capitalized on less-informed popular opposition, but the media has truly gone overboard with coverage of that opposition.

As of this point in the debate, I think the co-op plan seems to be the most practical, and will probably be the closest thing we can get to a solution for spiraling health care costs. The co-op plan will leave many details up to individual states to decide, which should be viewed as a positive step, so long as it doesn’t inhibit coverage across state lines. I’ll be curious to see how the story evolves in the media going forward.

[image via K3nna]

Ten African nations, including South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria, will be discussing the best ways forward for the continent in a summit this week. They will also be making waves by chiming in on the debate, asking western nations to cut down emissions by 2012 according to BBC news.

If the African continent can be subsidized to use clean burning fuels and sustainable energy, it will improve both the economic well-being of the continent as a whole, and by extension it will improve the global effort to combat global warming.

It think it’s up to western nations and the private sector to prop up these countries with money for research, investment, and implementation of a green infrastructure. If sustainable sources of energy can be harnessed in the developing world, it would not only benefit the planet, but serve as evidence that this model can be successfully adopted on a grand scale.

[image via epcp]

Obviously, the job of changing health care in a country with such a large population is difficult, especially when we consider the growing divide between the haves -those Americans satisfied with the coverage they pay for or receive from employers - and the have-nots – many remain uninsured.

And while this debate is certainly a necessary one that has rightfully generated heated discussion, the way it’s been framed by opponents and proponents alike, is the aspect I find deserving of the most attention.

Those against the current plan in the House have used buzzwords like “rationed care” to ignite firestorms of popular dissent during town hall style gatherings led by representatives of the plan, and have used the blogosphere, social media, and traditional media to spread dissent.

Which has prompted President Obama to embark on a PR crusade to ensure that the facts of the plan don’t get skewed by the opposition’s campaign. But those on the left have also been guilty of manipulating certain facets of the plan.

The Huffington Post reported today on a poll conducted by SurveyUSA, who receives support from the progressive website Move On, a major proponent of current health care legislation, which “puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.” The spin on this poll, released today, was that “more than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a “choice” between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage.” However, when the word “choice” was dropped from the statement, the results were extremely different.

In fact, “earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word “choice” from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies.”

In a debate where the baseline knowledge of the issue is already slim, it is clear that both sides have used their own “interpretation” of polls, town halls and media coverage to sway public opinion on the topic. And if the government’s role is still about working for the greater good, then this is certainly no way to achieve a consensus, particularly on an issue as vital as health care solution.

[image via sophiea]

While certainly a boon to the local economy – according to the Economist: “They have brought a bonanza of jobs and wealth to the area and to the province. In 2008 the provincial government netted C$2.66 billion in sales of land and drilling rights, and a further C$1 billion in royalty payments.” - tapping into these new sources has proven disruptive, with many locals upset at the increased traffic, construction, and pollution brought about by the drilling.

Encana, the company with the most established drilling operation, has suffered setbacks to its infrastructure in the form of eco-terrorists attempting to shut down the project. The latest attack on July 4th of this year created a 500 meter fissure in one of the natural gas pipelines which was still in repair from an attack four days prior. The bomber who took credit for the attack wrote a letter to Encana asking them to cease drilling operations or suffer even more serious attacks. In response, Canadian authorities have beefed up security and patrols, and even went so far as to bring in counter-terrorist experts.

In my mind, natural gas provides a stable, clean alternative to fossil fuels, and should represent – even to locals affected by natural gas drilling – both an economic and environmental opportunity. While it’s true that there needs to be limits in place on how and where this gas can be accessed, I think it’s necessary that businesses take the lead on discussing their practices openly and honestly before anyone feels compelled to resort to potentially dangerous and destructive acts.

Companies have to recognize their impacts on communities, both positive and negative, and be committed to working with local residents to set address any doubts or issues that may arise in all cases, but especially when they’re reaping significant windfalls. It’s the intelligent and responsible approach and will ultimately benefit everyone involved.

[image via Sam Beebe/Ecotrust]

The Economist published a feature on the term today, illustrating the dangers of what scientists may believe happen once the thaw becomes more pronounced: “As the permafrost thaws, bacteria start chewing up the organic matter it contains. This releases yet more carbon dioxide, as well as methane, another greenhouse gas, which has 25 times the warming potential of CO₂.”

Some estimates put the total carbon trapped beneath this layer as nearly double of what currently exists in the atmosphere. And as the scientific community struggles to come to a greater understanding of the frozen tundra and the permafrost beneath it, global temperatures continue to rise. Therefore, immediate action is paramount.

A new study being led by Breck Bowden of the University of Vermont in Burlington in collaboration with a group of top international scientists, will collect data and weigh the impact of the thawing permafrost global warming. The research will measure the potential carbon emissions caused by the bacteria inside the frost and its immediate effect on coastal and hillside communities which may be in danger.

The Economist reports on the scope of the study: “the [research] team will…try to work out how the development of features such as “retrogressive thaw slumps” and “active-layer detachments” (different ways in which thawing permafrost can cause a hillside to slip) are associated with the local climate, geology and vegetation. They will look, too, at the amount of ice in the ground, and the temperature and the moisture of the soil. All these data will be fed into computer models which, the researchers hope, will allow them to develop an automated way of predicting where and when new features will form, and to monitor them when they appear.”

Given that the project will take almost five years to complete, at which point the permafrost situation will undoubtedly be more pronounced, this research needs to be accompanied by short term solutions that can be implemented now. While this study is no doubt crucial, the dialogue it represents needs to reach the level of the general population to be truly effective. Temporarily setting aside scientific rigor and communicating these ideas to the public in a relatable way is essential to making the kind of progress this situation requires.

In speaking on “The Importance of Art,” I offer my thoughts from the standpoint of an appreciator, an investor and a philanthropist. The art world represents a rare opportunity to combine many of my passions into a singular endeavor and it’s vital that we continue to support the institutions that make it possible.