Clean Air Needs a Real Plan

In “Waking Up in Texas to Clean Fresh Air,” it is suggested that Texas should adopt the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan to improve the environment.  The blog mentions how the plan will require a reduction in greenhouse gases by coal-powered electric generating plants, however it provides no evidence for supporting the plan’s approval and acceptance.  While acknowledging that the plan will be expensive, it is asserted that the “cost will be worth it” but neglects to mention the fact that this cost will be recurring and potentially harmful to the economy.  Furthermore, it is suggested in the blog that Texas needs to accept this plan because “Texas is a big state [with fracking and oil production];” however, fracking and producing oil have little relevance to greenhouse gases.  Finally, it is suggested that Texas has a choice of adopting this plan: it doesn’t.  This plan will be forced on Texas and all other states by the federal government.

Greenhouse gases are released by both natural and human processes around the world.  These include among other activities, decomposition of organic matter, ocean releases, respiration, cement production, deforestation, and the burning of fossil fuels.  While some of these processes are susceptible to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, others are not.  Coal-fired power plants can be controlled to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, as this blog indicates, the costs will be high, which could lead to shutting down many of these plants.

There is no discussion of the downsides of the plan or the closing of these electric plants.  Besides making electricity less available, and possibly raising the price of electricity, there are some benefits that can be achieved from coal plants.  Studies are being done to determine the reductions in greenhouse gases in cement production that are available by replacing cement with fly ash, one of the residues generated by coal combustion.  These studies have shown that, by replacing 60% of the cement used in Texas concrete production with fly ash, carbon dioxide emissions, a primary greenhouse gas, could be reduced by 6.6 million tons annually, which is a substantial reduction.  With the adoption of the Clean Power Plan, programs, such as a new way to produce concrete, will be eradicated rather than strengthen and moved along faster and better.  Additionally, the blog refers to “small community programs” that are “only decreasing pollution by a little,” but makes no mention of the hundreds of research groups around the nation that are making huge steps to solving the problem of greenhouse gases.  Further, it is unlikely that adoption of the Clean Power Plan in the U.S. will cause China, which produces vastly more greenhouse gases, to incur these types of costs to reduce its greenhouse gases.  If reduction is not made on a global scale, then Obama’s plan is just wasting money.

When deciding whether the Clean Power Plan is worth the costs, there are several aspects that must be considered.  First consider how the Clean Power Plan will affect the electric industry in America if coal-fired power were replaced with gas-fired power.  What will happen if we have another gas shortage?  Having more than one type of fuel helps to ensure that enough electricity can be generated.  Another consideration is that the cost of implementing these changes introduced in the Clean Power Plan could outweigh the benefits of changing the source of power.  Greenhouse gases are also a global issue.  Implementing the Clean Power Plan will result in only a small portion of the world’s carbon emission being decreased as other countries, such as China, will most likely not follow our lead to reduce carbon emissions.  Another consideration that needs to be taken into account is how the Clean Power Plan could affect and harm other plans to reduce carbon emission that are currently being used and working.  Much thought and thorough consideration must be put into how much the Clean Power Plan will help or harm solutions to a problem that is being addresses every day.

Tuition Needs Regulation

In 2003, the 76^th Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3015 deregulating tuition of public universities.  In addition, HB 3015 also requires universities to set aside 15 % of tuition to provide financial assistance for students and lessen the effects of tuition deregulation.  Another 5% is required to be set-aside to fund the Texas B-on-Time Student Loan Program.  In all, for fiscal years 2005-2008, $248 million was set aside for undergraduates and $48 million for graduate students.  Since deregulation, the total academic charges, including tuition and fees, for a student at a public university has increased 72 percent.  With these increases, universities have reported a growing share of their operational income is funded by tuition and fees for the following purposes: the use of funds to recruit and retain faculty and staff, increase academic course offerings, lower the student-teacher ratio, offer student services, maintain facilities, pay utility costs, service building debt, and provide additional financial aid to students.

When looking at data provided for before and after deregulation, there have been drastic increases in tuition and fees, which have only gotten worst over the years.  In 2003 at the University of Texas at Austin, there was a statutory tuition (set by the legislature) of $690 dollars and a designated tuition (set by the board of regents) of $690 totaling into a $1,380 fee per semester.  Including another $641 in fees, it cost $2,721 to attend UT in 2003 (excluding books and living costs).  By 2009, statutory tuition increased to $750 and the designated tuition increased to $2,276 with a total tuition of $3, 026.  Accounting for the fees, which increased only slightly, it cost $4,468 to attend in UT in 2009.  The change in tuition totaled $1,646, or 119% between the two years while the total cost increased$1,747, or 64%.  The total cost (tuition plus fees) has only increased slightly since then: today the total cost at UT for Texas residents is $4,915 for a 15-hour load.  For comparison, non-residents would pay $17,418 per semester.  While statutory tuition is determined by the Texas Legislature as a set amount per semester credit hour, the designated tuition is determined by a governing board at each institution of higher education at a level that the board considers necessary for the operation of the institution.  HB 3015 eliminated the previous limits on the governing boards to set designated tuition rates so that there is currently no limit on the amount of tuition the university may charge.  Universities argue that, because of inflation and less money being provided by the state (an 11% decrease per student), campuses had to raise tuition to make up for lost revenue. 

As a current student at the University of Texas at Austin, I have not seen the improvements that were supposed to result from the additional tuition revenue.  In my college, there are few people who seem to receive financial aid, there is not an improved student-teacher ratio, and there are not enough sections of degree-required courses to allow you to stay on track for a four-year graduation.  And there seems to be little improvement of existing facilities, but there are new buildings being constructed.  In addition, while the passage of house bill 3015 included financial assistance to be set-aside to help with the impact of deregulation, the financial aid would not have been required if there had been no tuition increases as a result of deregulation.  While there is some financial aid available, the increase of tuition, about 55 percent, is placing several leading universities, including UT, out of reach for middle-income families that cannot qualify for financial aid.  Many students and families must look for funding from other places and usually must take out loans.  By the time many students leave college, they are stuck with more than a hundred thousand dollars of loans that need to be paid off, with no guarantee they will have a job once they graduate, or that even with a job, they can afford to pay off the loan.  The amount student loans has now surpassed the amount of credit-card debt in this country and many financial experts worry that it will be a huge drain on our economy.  People spend so much paying off student loans that they cannot afford to buy new cars or houses, which hurts those sectors and results in fewer available jobs.  With more students attending universities and cuts to higher education funding, the current problem at hand will continue to grow and cause even bigger issues to develop.

Tuition should be regulated so that it is controlled by our elected representative who are responsive to the concerns of parents and students and the impact of the increase student-loan problem on our economy.  Leaving this decision to the unelected members of the governing boards will result in increasing growth in tuition and those boards are concerned primarily with their institution and not with the financial well-being of the people or the health of the state’s economy.  The boards will continue to increase rates to compete with other schools without providing increased educational benefits to students.