By Wallace C. Turbrville, the former CEO of VMAC LLC who writes at New Deal 2.0
In the 1930s, a great many Southerners had no access to electricity. The Roosevelt administration perceived an enormous opportunity to restructure the region’s economy. By building facilities to bring power to the rural South, jobs would be created from thin air to mitigate the unemployment of the Great Depression. More importantly for the long run, commercially vibrant communities would replace subsistence farms. For the people directly affected, lives of toil and sweat would be a thing of the past; for the nation, large populations would be integrated into the economy for the first time, helping to assure sustainable and diverse growth in the post-depression era.
The political effects were dramatic. Robert Caro, in his epic biography of Lyndon Johnson, described the brutal life of West Texas before the creation of the Lower Colorado River Authority. He pointed out that the dramatic life-changing effect of rural electrification spawned a fierce loyalty to New Dealers like Johnson. This persisted throughout the South for three decades until, ironically, Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation snuffed it out.
For those 30 years, electrification and other tangible benefits of the New Deal drove political discourse in this country. For the next three decades (and still), the Civil Rights legislation animated politics. The issue morphed from overt racism to resentment of the federal government telling people what to do. We must remember to thank Rand Paul for reminding us of the connection between race and the radical right.
Today, the federal government is considering a second revolution in energy. The issues are more abstract than those of the 1930s. We no longer have insufficient energy infrastructure. We have the wrong infrastructure. Instead of a backwards region dragging on an economy already in dire straits, the concerns today are threats to our future well-being: climate change and dependence on foreign sources of fuel. A comparison of the 30s and today is like the difference between treatment of a bleeding artery and a wellness program. Both will save your life, but the wellness program can be started next week.
It will be necessary to overcome both parochial regional opposition and ideological opposition by the Republican right. The right has a general aversion to federal expenditures to secure a promised benefit in the future. The aversion is strongest in regions whose economies depend disproportionately on coal. Their upfront cost is disproportionately large and the anticipated benefits are spread over the whole society.
The key to success is to articulate an urgency to act on concerns that are somewhat intangible. Energy reform addresses two distinct concerns. Climate change constitutes a catastrophic threat while energy independence is a national security matter, a defense against economic tactics in the conflict with Islamic extremism. A portion of the public is susceptible to both concerns. However, on the extremes, representing the most politically active people, there is much less overlap. In particular, the people who are most attached to the national security rationale are unlikely to be motivated by environmental risks. For example, despite the tragedy of the BP oil spill, many on the right are resistant to a drilling moratorium. The winning strategy is to keep as many individuals from these two groups together as possible. This is a treacherous endeavor.
The task of the proponents for a new energy revolution can be framed by an analysis of the opponents’ strategy. The most direct strategy, obfuscation, was signaled by Lamar Alexander in his response to the President’s Oval Office speech on energy and the oil spill. He characterized the proposed Climate Change legislation as an “energy tax.” He proposed as an alternative simply replacing half of our vehicles with electric powered cars, trucks and buses.
For those who thought that the legislation was about the environment, this alternative proposal sounds like nonsense. The new vehicles will still require energy, just not gasoline as fuel. Transportation represents about 33% of total carbon emissions in the US. Power generation accounts for about 42%. Simple logic suggests that the 16.5% reduction in transportation sources would be transferred to power generation which would then constitute 58.5%. Almost certainly this is imprecise, but, as they say in Tennessee where Senator Alexander and I grew up, “it’s close enough for gov’ment work.”
Alexander’s proposal is not about the environment. It is designed to separate the national security advocates from the environmentalists. It is unlikely that Republicans view it as a realistic alternative. It echoes the tactics employed in the health care debate. In health care, they attempted to carve back the scope of the bill by advocating an incremental approach, knowing full well that the only way to benefit poorer people was comprehensive legislation. Their purpose was to separate middle income people interested in insurance reform from those also interested in the plight of the poor. The Democrats were tentative about advocating benefits of helping poor people and the opponents achieved significant success. If the same tentativeness is used regarding the environmental benefits of the Climate Change legislation, we can expect the same type of result or much worse.
The second strategy of the opponents is de-legitimization. The far right has turned this into a socio-political movement, encompassing everything from the Birthers to the Tea Party enthusiasts dressed in Revolutionary War costumes. They embrace the position that scientific proof of climate change caused by human activity is untrue. To explain these beliefs in the face of concrete evidence they resort to pseudo science and preposterous conspiracy theories. (This is a remarkable echo of the religious right’s reliance on literal readings of the Bible to counter scientific facts like evolution.)
Republican leaders have seized on this anti-intellectual movement. It is hard to believe that politicians who are able to ascend to positions of leadership and commentators able to construct and manage media empires are unpersuaded by the scientific consensus on climate change. The only alternative is that they are driven by cynical opportunism and venality. Their motives are known only to them. The practical problem is that the movement is a useful weapon for ideological opponents of Climate Change legislation.
Of the two opposition strategies, obfuscation will only be successful if de-legitimization works to undercut the threat of climate change. The message of de-legitimization is particularly powerful in America today. The American public is insecure and feels as if leadership of all kinds has failed it. Being normal humans, they are unlikely to blame themselves for bad decisions. It is easier to de-legitimize the people and institutions in which they formerly chose to believe. The President and other leaders must not allow themselves to be ridiculed and bullied by know-nothings.
If the climate debate becomes an argument over competing beliefs through de-legitimization of proponents, the cause is lost. Opponents would not advertise their real intent to kill the whole effort. They would offer easier incremental options designed to appeal to those most interested in national security, hoping to smother the environmental elements of the legislation.
The proponents cannot succeed by relying on compellingly logical proofs. The problem is not that people doubt the data and the algorithms; it’s that they doubt the messengers. The first step in bolstering legitimacy is to demonstrate sincerity of the messengers. Sincere people are more legitimate. The President is the dominant messenger in our system so it must start with him.
Climate change threatens future generations. It would be powerful if the President conveyed with sincerity that addressing climate change now is important to him because of concern for his family and that he shares this concern with all American parents. The threat to the future must made concrete and personal and that means families. Political agendas must be secondary to sincere and shared concern for future generations. If the public believes that the single leader elected by all of us sincerely is concerned for their children’s well-being, de-legitimization will lose its bite. Science can then make the case for prompt action.
32 comments
Comments are closed.
The second energy revolution, if it starts at all in the crazy US on the desperately phukked up planet, may have come too late:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html
Now I’m no Daily Mail guy, but our collective refusal to accept that perpetual growth is a Bad Idea, that bling and glitter are far less important than health and community, does indeed consign us to the dustbin. We’ll take a bunch of other critters down with us too. But hey, we are but one of many of nature’s experiments; there were never any guarantees. We had the intelligence, but failed to muster the wisdom needed to wield our gifts sustainably.
So long, and thanks for all the hamburgers.
Don’t take it so hard. No species has lasted very long in terms of geological time.
Re: but our collective refusal to accept that perpetual growth is a Bad Idea
If we refused to accept perpetual growth would we also have to stop believing in the miracle of compound interest? And the need to pay it off.
Re: We had the intelligence, but failed to muster the wisdom needed to wield our gifts sustainably.
Depends… I predict the smartest amoral scumbags will keep getting richer and use their wealth to reproduce children with whiter teeth, bigger boobs/dicks, and shinny-er hair. Life is about DNA perfection, the assholes win.
It will be fun to watch them fight the robot armies.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/robot-armies.htm
Theme tune: Richie Havens “License To Kill”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JltNLkh03ME
Thank you for that Doc Holiday, I’d never come across Richie Havens before.
And what a wonderful rendition!
Tune 2: To The Last Whale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoek1e8t2K4
Climate change is not a priority for this President. If it was, he would have pushed through strong climate and energy legislation last year and then have exercised strong leadership at the December Copenhagen conference. Instead we got a weak, then further watered down, cap and trade system in Waxman-Markey from the House and nothing from the Senate. Kerry is still trying to flog some similar kind of legislation there. So rather than swift, strong action we have gotten more than a year of dithering. True, healthcare took up a lot of last year, but that was a White House decision to proceed on only a single front and then draw out that process endlessly, despite its effects on other bills. Then too the worldwide economic downturn has made leaders resistant to real reduction in carbon based emissions. So while Turbrville is right that Republicans are engaged in a particularly destructive form of obstruction, he fails to take into account how Obama and the Democrats have slowballed and lowballed climate legislation.
BTW the NYT is reporting that OMB director Orszag is leaving.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/orszag-leaving-as-budget-director/
Cap and trade must be discarded, the sooner the better.
Replacement? Fees and benefits, which happens to work, while preventing further enrichment of the money class and organized crime.
The very little I know about the idea of Cap and Trade has sounded like such a bizarre shell game that I never really tried to understand the details.
So I agree that there must be something better. I suspect the better solution will be more painful sooner, which is why we are looking at Cap and Trade.
Not directly related, but an energy theme…
Has anyone seen the “Gasland” documentary showing on HBO this week? The story of how we are extracting natural gas over many large parts of the US with great collateral damage from the processes used?
Yet another depressing story I was not aware of. One dramatic example — people able to ignite the well water coming out of taps in their homes because of methane being released below their property.
One of the problems in this issue, and with sincerity, is that the President is intervening in a context where, not only the federal government enjoys much less legitimacy, but the nation state itself appears much weaker to federate allegiance, enthusiasm than at previous times in our history.
I wrote a comment to Glenn in the last links post about what I perceive to be at work in the perceived irrationality of the Christian fundamentalists in the U.S., which leads to some people’s rejection of climate change science.
They are challenging a TOTALIZING belief/faith IN science (and progress ?).
A belief system that historically has kept us going for a while.
And which is in opposition to traditional belief in God. (I’m not going to repeat my comment here.)
Scientism is a complete belief system.
I think that… we would do better acknowledging this, and that… our scientists don’t know what is going to happen to a T, for example. Which is true.
I think that we would do better… not being so arrogant about our beliefs in science, and clamoring that they are “the truth”, and that anybody who does not believe IN science is ignorant, a fool, an idiot, whatever.
I think we would do better… BELIEVING that we are the equal of the Christian fundamentalists (and other people we think are wackos…) the way… our Constitution says, for example.
Five years ago I did a presentation on the death penalty in an English speaking church where a Texas woman was present.
My “liberal’s” dream presentation (all the statistics, the money wasted, etc etc) fell on deaf ears, and to this day, that has bothered me.
Rational argument is not enough to convince the people who don’t think like you do.
Does that mean that… there is no way to reach them ?
Sometimes, I guess.
But I think that in putting emphasis on OUR COMMON HUMANITY, by not being arrogant, not squaring off into corners, we can accomplish much more probably, than through SOLELY “rational” argument.
The people who are challenging climate science are ALSO challenging the idea that we HAVE to be rational ALL the time, or we suffer from… cognitive dissonance, for example.
This idea is a belief too. Not “truth”.
So… if we TRY listening to them (and being sincere like the guy says) and not immediately disqualifying them, well, maybe politics could open up ?
After all, it’s not because we believe different things, and believe IN different things, that we’re not still all of us human, right ?
Maybe if we deep down believe that they have the right to THEIR beliefs, THEY will be less strident and defensive about expressing them ?
And WE can be less strident and defensive about ours ?
Re: Does that mean that… there is no way to reach them ?
Absolutely. What intellectual can’t seem to comprehend is that nobody thinks. There is no free will. Get over it.
People are nice or mean to outsiders and new ideas (x axis – left to right) and worship or despise authority (y axis – top to bottom). Fascists are at the upper left, socialist at the upper right, libertarians lower right, old-school liberals lower left.
What you call the Christian fundamentalists are just the people who brain chemistry results in kick-ass mean strong-daddy worshippers. Which is why a big fascist government run by strong males and big corporations run by strong males IS their politics. They don’t choose this, they ARE this.
The extremes (of the x & y axis) always carry more political weight because these people are true-believers.
Stop trying to change people. The best you can do it attempt to weaken them.
(Yes, the guilt-ridden socialists are just a bad.)
The good thing is that we no longer seem to be pretending that the reason for lowering fossil fuel consumption is to avert a wholly imaginary global warming catastrophe.
The bad news is that the proposal is, as it stands, totally unworkable. You simply cannot leave everything else unchanged and just replace gas powered vehicles with electric powered ones. They don’t have the range, the speed, the climate control. The charging infrastructure is not there, and is not going to arrive. Cannot be done.
We could reduce the consumption of oil by one half. What it would take however would be large scale social changes. This is what the AGW lobby evidently now reinventing itself as the energy security lobby are in denial about. We would have to reduce the role of oil in agriculture. This would mean and end to chemical agriculture and a return to mixed farming, crop rotation, lower yields.
Then, we’d have to move people in large numbers, comparable to the sort of migrations that the car produced, so that rail travel and commuting was practical again. We would have to cut car sales by more than half, we’d have to reduce the numbers of cars on the roads, and also reduce the miles traveled, by that amount. This would mean abolition of the mall and the suburbs and move back to cities with dense populations and shopping within walking distance. Yes, people would have to start walking to the shops again. Shopping more frequently. Finally of course air travel and freight will have to go. And business will have to relocate so that one can get to work by public transport. As people used to, years ago.
Phoenix and other energy intensive cities would have to shrink as well. We forget the extent to which many of the cities that have grown most post WWII are entirely dependent for their economic viability on cheap energy to make life liveable in them.
It can be done. The reverse was done back in the twenties through the sixties with the rise of the automobile as the means of personal transportation, so given incentives or programs it could reverse. It might not even be a bad thing from the point of view of quality of life. But its absolutely huge, and its very different way of social organization from what we have now. What is needed is honesty about what is really being proposed. What is being proposed is not replacing internal combustion engines with electric ones. Driving to the mall in a Prius. What is being proposed is a complete revolution in living styles.
But the real problem is competition/socio-economics and international relations. The real problem is as fundamental as supply and demand– it has never worked over any period of time to create the kind of artificial demand, which would be required to incentivize the kinds of changes in industry and energy production necessary to somehow pre-emptively cause (i.e artificially produce)resource scarcity. And we are talking about resource scarcity– the green house effect or water degradation should be conceptualized as the mis-management (waste) of a necessary resource- it’s not helpful to think that we are creating too much CO_2, rather we’re using too much of what’s on the other side of the equation, fossil fuels, food production related resources, etc.
We are going to keep consuming and keep digging our hole deeper, until we hit rock bottom.
At a time when education is our only hope, education is becoming increasingly in-affordable. Politics _is_ bankrupt.
As a species many humans are still arguing about whether or not God want’s them to circumcise their children. Democracy is failing because we haven’t been able to take everyone with is, instead we’ve been all too happy to exploit the stupidity of others. These are two examples of some of the inherent conflicts of interest in our way of life– GW Bush famously jumbled the lines, “Fool me once, etc.” That’s because in any kind of power relationship that’s just not true, the real moral of the story is more like, “manipulate someone once, good for you, manipulate someone twice, twice as good for you.” (And you might even win an election or two on the side.)
“To explain these beliefs in the face of concrete evidence they resort to pseudo science and preposterous conspiracy theories. (This is a remarkable echo of the religious right’s reliance on literal readings of the Bible to counter scientific facts like evolution.)
Republican leaders have seized on this anti-intellectual movement. It is hard to believe that politicians who are able to ascend to positions of leadership and commentators able to construct and manage media empires are unpersuaded by the scientific consensus on climate change. The only alternative is that they are driven by cynical opportunism and venality.”
You’re right, a transition from oil is a deep transition from the way of life we’ve built up with the help of oil. But why do you think we need to do this? Peak oil?
I’m not sure that AGW is pure imagination, as you say it is. I’ve teetered on this issue for a long time; not being a scientist of any stripe, having solid convictions on this matter is something I refuse to allow myself. A series of videos by greenman3610 on youtube has plonked me in the AGW camp again. He’s done a lot of research and the data he presents looks compelling. In the end, we punters are at the mercy of the fractions of the debate we can understand. What does make sense to me however is that humanity can have an effect on climate, as it does on various ecosystems, because our powers of production and consumption are so enormous, and our handling of waste abominable. That planetary climate has changed because of the actions of living systems is not unprecedented in Earth’s history of course, so it would hardly be a novel occurrence were homo sapiens to tilt climate this time around. Climate is a dynamic balance of all factors contributing to it.
Finally, the changes you sketch are probably exactly what the doctor ordered. I’m not for austerity, but I’m not for unbridled consumption of all manner of useless junk just to keep a system going that is unsustainable anyway. There’s far more to life than toys and gadgets. Also, maglev train technology could combine with the car to produce a hybrid transportation system that would be substantially less greedy in terms of energy consumption, and pretty much as ‘free’ as the automobile. Check these guys out:
http://www.et3.com/
Also, food post-oil might not be as ‘primitive’ or scarce as you imply. Hydroponics, aeroponics and permaculture offer very promising alternatives to oil-based fertilizers and pesticides. Permaculture techniques have worked wonders on the most arid and salty soil. See this (youtube ‘greening the desert’):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk
There are many wonderful and sustainable technologies out there that need the world’s attention on them. The problem is that existing corporate behemoths will suffer should momentum build behind them. Like I say, it’s not austerity we need, just sensible sustainability. We know what we need to know to transition from oil, we just have to want to do it badly enough.
Re: so given incentives or programs it could reverse
Anything is possible if there’s a smart amoral scumbag that will benefit from it.
The current transportation system was designed to benefit peripheral development (peripheral to the existing urban areas). Developers (land owners) purchased politicians to create “incentives” to direct taxpayer loot to building freeways to increase the usefulness (and value) of peripheral land – this was very smart and the monetary benefits went to the developers.
If you can figure out another taxpayer scam to redirect government loot into the hands of a few scumbags then the transportation system can be changed again. The KEY concept here is “into the hands of a few” smart amoral scumbags. Nothing else matters.
“The first step in bolstering legitimacy is to demonstrate sincerity of the messengers. Sincere people are more legitimate. The President is the dominant messenger in our system so it must start with him.”
Just recall how sincere Tony Blair was on Iraq. Didn’t make him right.
Re: Just recall how sincere Tony Blair was on Iraq. Didn’t make him right.
A sociopath will always sound sincere. That’s why humans keep electing them. They are (actually) more sincere than a non sociopath (ironically).
Good article!!!… I’d like to see more of this, on same subject, with more precise detail.
apt characterization…
You’re too kind. Repub opposition is much less “ideological”, rather of the K-Street pack their pockets w/green variety. Just as it is/was in waiving oversight of drilling, banking/finance, and most everything else under the sun.
Obama’s bigger problem is his utter lack of action in making these distinctions, in concert w/(it seems to me) too holy alliances w/the same knights of darkness. That he has seemingly made little/no effort to purge BushCo industry hacks from policy/oversight positions hardly anywhere in Fed gov: eg. DOJ, EPA, all the finance/banking related agencies…
I don’t think they’re intangeable at all. I also think the “distinct concerns” you mention are peripheral, as they will occur from more core, explicit motivating factors: efficiency, long term sustainability, and lower energy costs over long term.
Don’t make this discussion w/in context of frivolity, as Repubs have done w/everything for over a decade now. Unfortunately, BO has shown little tendency to articulate core principles in anything, so…
And it should be mentioned, Steven Chu is arguably BO’s most competent cabinet level appointee. Unfortunately, BO’s has pretty much put him in the backround, refused to give him any meaningful authority, and subjected his office to Rahm’s political whims at every turn.
I’m not optimistic BO has the stuff to execute this well, as there has been no evidence of his doing so given the huge opportunities he’s had so far, but fumbled.
I do agree w/your charactarization of “opposition” (Sen. Alexander etc.)… all the more reason to get to the heart of the matter.
What a piece of CO2 haters propaganda…
It always amuses me when I read stories (and the following comments) like this. Generally it is extremely rich people (by global standards) fretting about “global warming” (oh sorry) “climate change”. We can debate about the science and all but in the end the vast majority of people on this planet have to work exceedingly hard to eek out an existence.
I think we can all agree that environmental quality is desirable. I also think we can agree environmental quality is expensive. For example, if you ask someone “Do you want your drinking water to be 100% pure and clean?” the likely answer would be yes. However, if we modify the question and say, “Your drinking water is 97% pure and clean, would you be willing to pay an additional $5.00 for 99% clean?” the answer would likely be, well, no. This is simple marginal analysis and diminishing returns.
We know that until a society reaches a certain level of per capita income; say $5,000, environmental quality is rarely on the radar. Don’t get me wrong, I like a clean environment.
Perhaps this current rebalancing will lead to what so many on this post seem to desire. As wage levels in other societies rise they will demand more environmental quality. Of course, this will mean we will have lower wage levels but…
This is kind of tiresome sort of piece. What good is it to say that “We must have an energy revolution!” without more than vaguely suggesting what it should be?
The Obama administration, imo, has really dropped the ball with the opportunity they’ve had to push liquid fluoride thorium reactors as the preferred power plant for the U.S.
They ran one of these for five years in the late 60’s but decided to have the NRC push the now usual uranium/plutonium reactors instead, because those reactors create material for nuclear weapons.
You can hold a lump of thorium in your hand without harm to yourself. And the U.S. has massive amounts of it. Why Obama and Chu haven’t seized on this opening is beyond me. The public relations selling of it is painfully obvious, too. You can easily imagine Obama glancing back and forth from teleprompter right to teleprompter left while intoning, “A technology foolishly neglected in the pursuit of material for nuclear weapons will revolutionize our power supply industry and create the clean power that will run our industry for centuries.”
But, no. Nothing.
Agree that the “energy revolution” referenced in post seems mostly to be an excuse for the author to declare war on people he simply doesn’t like. (I have no use for this either). Given the title, I expected some productive ideas. No one can support something when they don’t know what it is they’re supporting.
Meanwhile, I think the real story is that most advocates have NO IDEA what the “energy revolution” should consist in, just as people had NO IDEA what the “stimulus bill” should do. Not that it mattered, as it seems to primarily have bailed out the states (sort of).
Is it really surprising that people whose livihoods would be destroyed are resistant, especially when there’s no alternative vision? I’m not particlarly exercised about the drilling moratorium but it’s not particulary damaging to my family budget.
If it were, though, I’d be pretty irritated, in the face of this contentless post, to hear that my real problem is that my empty head is up my ass.
So, yes, the problem is the author has earned no legitimacy–and he thinks it’s outrageous he would “delegitimized.”
Maybe *more* scientist and more engineer–and NO pundit.
None.
Apply Pascal’s Wager to human-caused climate change. Blaise Pascal reasoned that there are four possibilities regarding human belief in the existence of God. We can either correctly or incorrectly believe that God does not exist; and we can correctly or incorrectly believe that God does exist. He concluded that he had nothing to lose and much to gain by believing that God exists.
Substitute human-caused climate change for the existence of God. Each of us can correctly or incorrectly believe that human-caused climate change is possible and happening — or is impossible and will never happen. We act according to what we believe, and place our bets accordingly. But the outcome of our bets may not be known until decades into the future.
If you believe that human-caused climate change is not happening, it is logical that you would act accordingly to protect your investments and sunk costs in the incumbent energy infrastructure. If it turns out that your belief was incorrect, by then you will probably be long-gone. Your children’s children will need to be tough to survive, but you would wish that for them anyway.
If you believe in the theory of human-caused climate change, it seems logical to conclude that you have nothing to lose, and much to gain, by placing your bet and committing your life accordingly — to you, the future of the world is at stake. Bold, decisive action is required to change the way the world works.
Can any amount of persuasive evidence dissuade a true believer? It comes down to politics and law. I attended Bill McKibben’s keynote speech at the Midwest Renewable Energy Association’s Energy Fair on June 19. To paraphrase his moral challenge: those of you who know and understand climate-change science have a moral obligation to do everything you can to work toward a solution. As Wallace Turbeville says, the President is in an ideal position to make the case that the decisions we make today will profoundly affect the lives of our children and their descendants forever. Our economy has evolved, and it will continue to evolve. I hope the President believes that we humans can change Earth’s climate — and that he will act accordingly.
The AGW debate, unfortunately is being fought on anything but scientific grounds. Religious, political, moral, but rarely scientific. The issue is so polarized now that is clearly has become a left/right debate. (this from a quasi-republican who believes AGW is a real threat AND Al gore doesn’t need any more 500 million dollar federal loan to make electric cars that cost 65k a pop.)
I would also add that this is also discussed with a binary mindset by both sides, when it is clear to me that this is about tradeoffs, and cost benefit analysis. And certainly, the prisoner’s dilemma of industrialized nations addressing this problem further complicates it.
The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stone, as the saying goes. I suspect the oil-age, when viewed from the year 2150 will seem laughably inefficient.
They’ll be telling their kids “No , I swear to god, they would pump this sludge out of the ground, and ship it, on a friggin boat two thousand miles, and then you had to pay for it, burn it up and do it again.”
It will be a stupid as taking Nantucket sleigh rides was in the 1800’s (harpooning whales and tiring them out) to get whale oil to light lamps, when viewed with the hindsight of electricity having been discovered.
How we get from here to there? Life finds a way. I’m not sure funneling money from middle America to the Federal Govt (and it WILL be middle America who pays, not the big bad corporations) via a carbon tax is anything different than the 1850’s version of rationing whale oil. Well-intentioned but reductive instead of constructive.
The issue morphed from overt racism to resentment of the federal government telling people what to do. We must remember to thank Rand Paul for reminding us of the connection between race and the radical right.
The preeminent difficulty with Wallace C. Turbrville’s piece and with most of the comments on it is that they naively mistake appearances for reality. The D.C. political discussions are not about the reality of global warming etc. but mostly about manipulating constitutencies and acquiring as much money from entrenched financial and corporate interests as possible. The esteemed members need the money to fund their reelection campaigns or they will be out of office. They will say and do whatever it takes to get the money while pandering to organized groups they think will deliver votes only for “feeling their pain.”
What nominally looks like ideological disputes (“right”, “left”, government vs market mechanisms for decisions, ad infinitum) are just more theater. Congress and Obama cannot afford the luxury of ideologies because their only value is more money and maintaining themselves in power. This is not new. Arthur Schlisinger Jr. pointed out how in the late 1830 and 1840s the Whigs abdicated any intellectual orientation, ideas and political principles gave way to political posturing and theater because it won elections. Ideas were reduced to slogans. Argument and debate were no longer taken seriously in their linguistic literal meanings but morphed into theater the value of which was measured in terms of their ability to help get elected. Note that this was also the pivotal time in American history when it shifted from a rural land of small holders to an industrial capitalist state.
America, its political institutions and corporations are far too ossified and corrupt to change anything but their rhetoric. Seriously confronting global warming or any serious social problem is beyond the pale because those who finance politics (the political donor class) are focused on pursuing their short term self interests. The tragedy of the commons means nothing to them though, of course, they will endlessly spew rhetoric about being “green” for its market and political value.
None of this should be surprising. Elected officials all get their money from the same places and those who give it largely control what comes out of congress, as Tom Delay so crassly demonstrated when lobbists came calling. In 2007 the financial industry accounted for 41 percent of all corporate profit! That’s why the financial reform legislation is, as one person put it, legislative effluent.
Mr. Audacity of Hope is nothing more than an arch hypocrit whose policies are almost entirely a continuation of the Bush Cheney regime. It is unambiguously clear that marking ballots is pro forma democracy and waste of time because it is just another expression of the theater, the images on Plato’s cave wall. Stalin said that who counts the ballots determines the outcome not those who mark them. But American political parties and the political donor class did him one better: if you determine the choices then the outcome is forgone. No need to stuff ballot boxes or fraudulently count.