A few months back, James Baker,a close ally of the Bush family, broke ranks with the Bush administration and called for the United States to get serious about global warming. In a
speech to an audience that included a number of oil company executives, he said "orderly" change to alternative energy was needed.
"It may surprise you a little bit, but maybe it's because I'm a hunter and a fisherman, but I think we need to a pay a little more attention to what we need to do to protect our environment."
"When you have energy companies like Shell and British Petroleum, both of which are perhaps represented in this room, saying there is a problem with excess carbon dioxide emission, I think we ought to listen," Baker said.
Now, this coming from
Nader or some funky Green wouldn't be news, but coming from James Baker, I think it warrants a lifted eyebrow at any rate.
Let's take a look at a couple of givens and see if there isn't room to bridge the divide with the right on the environment:
- As Jerome A Paris excellent diaries have noted, oil is a limited resource that's rapidly being diminished, not only by our consumption but the Chinese and Indians are now becoming energy burning powerhouses in their own rights. Comments about peak oil, being here, or happening in the coming decade are becoming common place. Bottom line, one day, probably sooner rather than later, we will have to learn to live without oil as a primary energy source.
- The oil we use is not just for energy consumption. It's also the basis for our fertilizer and, in fact, one of the main contributors to the so called green revolution that provides food for lots of the earth's ever increasing population. Oil is also used in the production of plastics which have become ubiquitous.
- Alternative energy solutions, while not perfect (what is?) and still developing (what isn't?) are available, and could be effectively mass marketed with appropriate (governmental) pricing supports. There would be lots of politics involved in figuring out the best and most appropriate technologies to support, and there's already some positioning occurring around the areas of biodiesel and nuclear energy alternatives. Although I've got some serious opinions on which 'alternative' would be best, I think for the time being just beginning a discussion about alternatives is essential.
So given that oil is going away, that alternative systems are available I wonder why are we putting so much of our effort into, at minimum, strategically positioning ourselves to protect the flow of that oil? Many may not like to see the Iraqi war in this light, but I don't really understand how else to look at it. I think when history is written 150 years from now, hell, 50 years from now the historians will be in agreement that this war was about positioning ourselves for an ever tightening oil resource. (Actually, I'd be curious if someone has a different rationale for the Iraqi war, what is it? WMD? Liberation? Personal revenge? Or 'fighting the terrorist there?' None of these make any sense to me.)
At any rate, given what we do know, that oil is going away, wouldn't it be wiser (and certainly more humane) to build alternative energy infrastructures that can ameliorate the transition we know will be coming someday soon, anyhow? Whether we can control that oil or not?
Finally, would there be an opportunity here to form a coalition that could bridge left/right divide in the interest of say, saving our own species and ultimately our planet?
Now speaking broadly what would each side have to give up?
On the left, they will probably have to make room for profit taking by some fairly dislikable players--the oil companies, themselves, probably the big 3, 4 automakers and some major utility companies. Personally, I don't like this, but it makes sense. I could live with the government directly funding a few (hundred? dozen?) companies to build the alternative energy infrastructure that would be necessary. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Shell and I don't like Exxon. I know they've done unethical things all around the world (Alaska, Ecuador, Nigeria, etc), but they also are power brokers in their own right and/or control power brokers so they'll probably have to be placated. Plus they have the know how. Traditionally, the vast bulk of governmental supports has come in the form of huge defense contracts to players like Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup Gruman and so forth. To the tune of billions, dwarfing everything--and I mean everything -- else in the Federal budget. Why not take take that money and reallocate it as alternative energy contracts to big petrol, utilities and the automakers?
On the right, I think the notion of ever expanding funding for military services (stars wars, etc.) and our ever expanding & expensive oil war would have to be dramatically cut back. This means, vis a vis Iraq, we get (i.e. bribe) the UN (hopefully) to offer peace keeping troops while we pull our own troops out. Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com) has a series of comments on the UN option that I find quite compelling. It may in fact be the only real solution to pulling out of Iraq without the entire country devolving into sectarian civil war.
One thing both the left and the right will have to get smart about is not simply handing out the money. Serious goals with serious goal posts will have to be put in place. I think Gore tried a little mini portion of a program like this funding Ford with alternative fuel saving research or some such, but it never went anywhere. If I remember correctly, Ford took the money, did the research than never brought it to market. Instead, they put out a line of SUVs, because they were more profitable. Nice. I think any funding would have to have a 'bring to market' stipulation on it. In other words, funding is made available to a variety of companies --probably the bigger players-- initially. Those that successfully bring products to market get pricing supports in the short term to either prove consumer acceptability or disprove it as measured by actual number of units sold, . Those that don't within a given period (2 years, 3 years?) have their initial research funds cuts. Those funds are then reallocated to other players that might have attractive alternative energy products. In short, the government operates as a economic stimulator engine for alternative energy research and development that can be brought to market. Once a product comes to market the government provides pricing support until such a time as product becomes a recognizable 'brand' in its own right and can stand on its own.
Now the details for how all that happens would probably have to be worked out by a bi-partisan committee populated by r&d scientist, environmentalist, oil execs, auto execs, engineers and of course major party players, dem, repubs, and maybe some independent parties (I'm thinking greens and libertarians primarily--though I can already hear libertarian Pat B. squealing!)
I'm hoping that the Republicans--the moderates, at any rate -- can come around to the view that this is actually the only way to win any 'war on terror'. Personally, I'm not extremely optimistic. I keep thinking of Jimmy Carter's efforts.... In the late 70s he installed solar panels on the roof of the White House trying to model for the rest of the country what conservation efforts and alternative energy technology could be about. The first thing that Reagan did when he moved into the White House was to tear them down. It was symbolic red meat for the right wing, but it was unnecessary and stupid.
One thing I think the right does generally recognize is that it takes courage and intelligence to build solutions. The left is good at detail work, generally, but big bold restructuring steps have not been in its palette since FDR. Lately, they seem to suffer from a kind of bureaucratic and shuffling fear which hinders their vision and highlights their inadequacies (of course, being the minority party doesn't help!). But this actually is a time for sweeping measures (the Chinese curse is upon us: may you live in interesting times...).
With the right now we do have a boldness of vision (Empire! Mckinley!) but without intelligence or discernment, the courage to risk so much, but no efficiency or follow through at all. We invade a country, but fail to turn on the lights? We occupy a foreign country and don't even have enough translators or flak jackets? What gives? What kind of efficiency is that? The war in Iraq is like watching the charge of the light brigade in slow motion on cable every night.
What's needed is a wedding of the two, admittedly a dark marriage where the Left's thoughtfulness, discernment and compassion is wedded to the Right's boldness, and willingness now to restructure government. Unlikely as it sounds, I think there is one place where the two can meet: the environment and alternate energy.
Anyhow, I'd be curious to hear any feedback the Dkos community might have on the alternative energy game plan. I'm sure it needs serious fleshing out, and critiquing, if it's even viable. But maybe it's a first step.