Politics of Energy and the Environment
A friend writes re: my recent piece on the politics of energy and the environment:
Looking at history, significant changes move at a glacial pace unless:
1) National leadership, especially the bully pulpit, drives a massive sea change. (e.g. JFK and the space race.)
2) Ideas among the general public grow to an irresistible crescendo. (e.g. The anti-war movement regardingVietnam.)
3) External events leave no options. (e.g. The 9/11 attack on the WTC.) Note: natural disasters from climate change fit in this category.
During the last debate, both candidates threw clean energy under the proverbial bus by damning it with faint praise as an afterthought. Clean energy advocates can’t depend on the bully pulpit. The bullies apparently choose to wimp-out, or mismanage their programs (possibly worse).
You’re on the right track to affect the general public. But advocates need to unite. How about organizing an online “National Energy Congress” to drive a 20-year energy plan. If you get an ambitious politician to add his/her voice, things might change. You need the right politician, not one of the usual suspects from the far left. Bill Clinton might be perfect, but probably unattainable. Is there a Republican or a corporate exec who would be publicly believed as an energy advocate?
There are so many good points here I don’t know where to begin. It’s certain that we do need an energy policy, and it would be terrific to have a spokesperson with the power and charisma of JFK. It’s also true that it can’t come from the usual suspects, i.e., currently serving politicians.
The main reason I wanted to publish this is what you wrote at the top about the few exceptions to the “glacial pace” of change. That’s excellent insight. And yes, any of the three could become the case here in the energy picture, though I wouldn’t say that any are particularly likely at this point.
For instance, one could argue that #3 is already the case, i.e., that external events leave no options. We have unparalleled droughts, floods, melting ice caps, acidification ruining the ocean ecosystems, a rapid increase in the loss of biodiversity, etc. We have 331 consecutive months in which the average world temperature exceeded the 20th Century average. How much damage do we need to sustain before we realize that we need to take action? I’m not sure that’s a question with an answer.
Again, great insight.
Dear Craig
I disagree with your friend that the green energy cause should be advanced via political means. The space race advanced precisely because it transcended even being a bipartisan issue but rather became a concern for every citizen that the nation not be outdone by the Russians. I remember as a boy how concerned the adults around me were looking up in the sky and seeing Sputnik flying around.
Green energy hasn’t progressed as fast as it could exactly and precisely because it is viewed as a partisan ‘left-wing’ issue.
My believe is that there is no reason for green energy to be a political issue at all but that the majority of us share a concern for the environment. I think that there is a general sentiment that the left has co-opted the environmental movement and politicized it.
Bottom line. Let’s get the politics out of green energy, cast a wide net and welcome all comers.
I’d say that #3 will be the first mover… I’m guessing the populstions of Manhatan, Miami, Houston, San Francisco and Seatle will lead the parade once the streets are awash in salt water. Oklahoma City, Kansas City and St. Louis may be destroyed by tornadoes by then. Climate change will not be fun.