If Andre the Giant and an anorexic midget fought in the ring, who would win? How about a $401 Billion company (Exxon) vs. a $53 M non-profit (Sierra Club - 2004). Is it worth noting that even with its enormous size, the value of Exxon is growing at a higher rate than the Sierra Club? Pick a figure to value the entire environmental movement, say $2Billion, can it ever win?
It is time to change the quixotic fight, and warmly embrace some of progressive's "enemies"--Walmart, General Electric, Honeywell, and others. From 1936 to 1950, corporate greed got rid of streetcars, without public or governmental approval. Corporate greed can do it again, this time by changing the public's dependance on inefficient and polluting energy sources. And they can make out like bandits, this time for society's benefit.
The fight to stop global warming has been portrayed on the right as one that will destory the economy. Pick your predictor of doom, the Cato Institute, the National Review, or any Fox news broadcast: First, the tactic was to deny it was happenning, now "it is too late to do anything," and "it will cause economic doom."
The fight for global warming calls for a change like the streetcar conspiracy, that destroyed the streetcar industry and--oh, wait--and benefited General Motors, Firestone, and the oil industry. So, if we look at this destruction of an industry and a way of life, we find there are not just losers, there are winners.
Now let's say, scientists found that wind power "supply the energy needs of the states from Mass. to North Carolina" An author of the study states,
Today, market forces and incremental technology developments will gradually make offshore wind the least-cost power in more and more East Coast locations," Kempton said. "On the other hand, if climate change becomes a much greater priority for the United States, our study shows how we could displace more than half the carbon dioxide emissions of the Mid-Atlantic area quickly, using existing technology."
On the practicality of producing 166,720 wind turbines, co-author Richard Garvine noted, "the United States began producing 2,000 warplanes per year in 1939 for World War II, increased production each year, and, by 1946, had sent 257,000 aircraft into service.
"We did that in seven years, using 1940s technology," he said.
Of course, this will be an economic distruption that is not in Exxon and other company's interests. Do we continue to pit the Sierra Club and others against the Exxon behemoth? Or do we recruit GE, and GE Wind Power, an organization with nearly the market capitalization of Exxon. Somewhere Jack Welch, the retired CEO of GE, is sipping his martini in a velvet jacket, and he is wondering, "How can my GE stock appreciate like Exxon's? How can I be wealthier than I am?" Why not recruit him?
If we want to promote solar, do we go to puny solar start-ups, or court Honeywell? Honeywell a powerful government contractor, who would benefit from the electronics needed for distributed power, and conservation technology.
A computer company such as IBM would be needed to integrate new metering systems.
And you create a coaltion by going all the way down the supply line to those who provide the raw materials for the projects.
In recent years, Walmart has had a bright idea--every dollar that the consumer spends on energy is a dollar that doesn't go into their pockets. Hence, Walmart spearheading the movement to promote CFLs.
What is true for Walmart is also true for smaller companies (non-oil). The US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business organization in the US, needs to come around to supporting efficiency (not conservation), as a "competitive advantage for businesses," an "augmentation of consumer disposable income," and a "fundamental investment and cost reduction for businesses." The organization's tenacles reach into almost every small county in the US, and it is one of the largest DC lobyists.
If a change in energy policy does come, the Sierra Club is not going to make any money off of it. However, many others will. With billions to gain in energy efficiency, with billions to gain in economic development from changing the energy infrastructure, the green movement has to change its slogans, with the help of greedy corporate interests and greedy consumers.
The word "conserve" has to be thrown out the window, and replaced with words like "invest," "be efficient," "don't burn, earn" and a thousand other catchy slogans--because if America can make the world change thousands of years of eating, and change from Crisco to butter, with negative benefits to both taste and health--then surely, surely, we can market something that puts dollars back in American pockets. It's not an ideological choice, it's dollars baby, show them the money!!