U.S. Politicians Mince Words on Energy Policy
The American voters who are hoping that the cause of clean energy and sustainability will still be alive when the dust clears in November can sleep a bit easier after tonight’s debate. But it sure was a tragedy to see the top two prospective leaders of the world’s most powerful nation behave like schoolchildren, and speak so evasively on these issues.
In particular, can’t someone tell the coal miners that their jobs are going away? Do both sides of the debate team really have to sell coal as a vital part of the U.S. energy future, when the exact opposite is so clearly the case?
If you guys won’t do it, I will. Watch this:
Attention coal miners and the executive strata in coal companies: Retrain, regroup, rethink, reorganize. Do whatever you want, but go out and acquire new skills that won’t kill you and the rest of the world.
See? It wasn’t so hard. I told the truth, and I lived to tell the tale.
Now, a word to President Obama: Realize that you’re talking to a whole bunch of people who actually follow the energy conversation. The U.S. is rapidly phasing out its aging, filthy coal-fired power plants, and you know it. Even if you have no shame about pandering for votes, you’re more than smart enough to know that there are far more people concerned about a sustainable energy policy than there are coal miners. What’s the problem with, even in the context of a hotly contentious political campaign, boldly expressing a brave and important truth?
Take a few deep breaths and go for it. It will make you feel better.
Craig,
Here I happen to agree with the President’s political calculus. The environmentally concerned voter is probably ~3% of the total electorate (that is, a voter that would potentially change his/her vote based exclusively on environmental policy). Those people are likely informed enough to know that Obama actually has a great record on environmental responsibility.
However, the coal workers comprise a few percent of Virginia and Ohio. These voters are likely single-issue voters, to such an extent that there are certainly more coal voters in either state than eco-voters. These voters are poorer working class voters that would naturally be better aligned with almost all of the president’s policies (other than coal-related). If Obama can split that vote, he’ll win Virginia and Ohio; and win Pennsylvania by a large margin. If he takes up the mantel of anti-coal (which would certainly be gratifying to me), he gains a few thousand fence-sitters on the far left (solidifying Colorado) while certainly losing Virginia, Ohio, and putting Pennsylvania in play.
The environmental movement would certainly see far slower (likely negative) gains if Romney were president… so by playing strategically and refusing a strong environmental policy; Obama can continue to progress the environmental movement at a faster pace than any president since Jimmy Carter; and we’ll have to live with that.
🙂
I do think that this is the last election where there is any traction in anti-renewables. Arizona is seeking to become a major player in solar, Nevada is increasing it’s stake in solar and geothermal, Colorado is becoming pure green, and Iowa is becoming more dependent on wind than it is on corn. By 2016, a candidate that talks trash about renewables will face a truly daunting map. But this isn’t yet 2016.
I would think that those who would vote for a candidate based on his commitment to renewables would do so for one of at least two reasons:
1) A financial motive, e.g., the ones you named above, or
2) Environmentalism.
I know that Americans do not put as much value on the environment as the Europeans, but I’m surprised that selling coal works with as many people as it apparently does.
I’m guessing that it infuriates most people – including me – who are not actively working for or invested in a coal company.
I’m just saying that there are a lot of those people who are very low information voters in Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Obama MUST win two out of three of those states… and the people who are concerned about the environment can likely be counted on to vote for Obama anyway, so I think he’s playing the correct strategy. In 20 days, he’ll go back to reducing coal as a U.S. policy… but in the debate he couldn’t say that.
Fine by me, I suppose.