The politicians role in environmental strategy
Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:27:34 PM PDT
Politicians generally don’t like to talk about the environment. That’s a fact that almost any environmentalist knows. They all support the environment, and claim to be doing things to help the environment (even when those claims are outright lies like those of the Bush Administration), but for the most part they don’t want to talk about it.
This has always bothered me. For a long time I thought it was because of the way environmentalists have been labeled as extremists, and in some right-wing circles terrorists. In fact, I don’t think a day goes by where right-wing talk radio doesn’t try to equate the environmental movement with the likes of Al Qaeda or 9/11 attackers in one way or another.
I’ve also felt that politicians don’t like to talk about the environment because many of their large donors come from corporate interests who really don’t want to see new environmental regulations put in place. They have interests that new environmental regulations would hurt, namely short-term profit margins.
But last night as I was lying in bed and trying to go to sleep between coughing fits, I realized something. I was reflecting on Barack Obama’s sweep of the weekend caucuses and primaries, thinking about what’s coming up next, and how I wished he’d said something more substantial regarding the environment in his speeches over the last few weeks. Then it suddenly hit me that he doesn’t understand what his role is when it comes to environmental policy, nor do any of the other politicians currently running for office.
When a candidate runs for office, they talk about the environment in very broad generalizations. They say they want to leave our world a better place for our children and grandchildren, and occasionally throw in a bone to environmentalists saying they’ll do things like finally sign on to the Kyoto treaty even though it’s set to expire in a few years. Once in a while they’ll say they’ll cap greenhouse gas emissions, but they don’t really go into specifics.
I think the reason they do this is because they’re really trying to balance the various interests that can get them elected. Many people in the general public see this and understand this, and as a result give politicians a pass on the environment. I think that’s the wrong way for politicians to approach the environment, because no matter what position they take, whether it’s pro-business or pro-planet, they probably gain and lose an equal number of voters, and in the long-run nothing is accomplished.
FDR proposed the New Deal as a way to relieve the suffering of the American people from the Great Depression. He created the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), FHA (Federal Housing Administration), and TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) as methods of stimulating the economy and taking the burden of the depression off the shoulders of average Americans.
The New Deal worked because it provided average Americans with the resources they needed to move forward and step out of the depression. It provided for regulation of business by creating the Securities and Exchange Administration, provided support for the elderly and infirm by creating the Social Security Administration, and provided electricity to rural America through the TVA. It even provided security to farmers through the FSA, and homeowners through the FHA.
The New Deal was a series of dozens upon dozens of programs sponsored by and regulated by the federal government that served to relieve the populace from the worst economic depression this country has ever known.
That’s the kind of vision America needs when it comes to political leadership on the environment. Politicians need to understand that the depth of our climate problems go far beyond what politics has the ability to fix. We can’t solve our environmental problems with policy statements and regulations alone. Thirty years ago that may have been enough, but after three decades of complacency, starting with Reagan, we’ve allowed our government to ignore the growing threat of environmental disaster.
We need politicians who have the ability to see beyond the focus groups, who realize that we’re already in the early stages of environmental crisis. We need politicians who have the vision and resolve to transform the debate on environmental policy, and have the courage to face the truth that it all begins with energy.
Energy is the single most important issue when it comes to the environment. Conservation, resource management, and almost every other environmental concern that we have stems from our need for more energy. Right now the vast majority of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Oil, natural gas, and coal are the lifeblood of American ingenuity and prosperity, and our addiction is a hard habit to break.
What we need is for our politicians to realize that future greatness can only happen after we free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels, and in order for that freedom to happen, we must find new technologies that can harness energy from renewable resources in ways that do not harm our environment.
Politicians can not and should not advocate one source of renewable energy versus another. It is up to scientists and physicists and engineers to find our new sources of energy, and more importantly to bring those resources to the public in affordable ways.
The tactic of President Bush has been to promote the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel, in spite of the known damage it does to our environment. Like many politicians, he has ignored the impact of ethanol production on the environment, and instead pushed for the one readily available energy technology that looks good from a public relations standpoint but does nothing to protect our environment.
The next President can not fall into that trap. We need to find clean, renewable sources of energy that are environmentally friendly from start to finish. Government can not provide those solutions, but the business and academic worlds can. And yes, the business world has a very important role to play in the energy model of the future.
Politicians have to realize that only they have the ability to provide the incentive for corporations to develop clean, renewable energy technology. Consumer power is limited in this regard, because the consumer can only choose between the resources made available to him by the corporations. Government, on the other hand, controls the purse strings, and politicians can decide to fund new research, give tax breaks for renewable energy research and development, and give tax breaks to consumers when they choose to purchase renewable energy.
But it’s also important to remember that politicians can’t pick and choose which resources to support based on kickbacks and campaign donations. Only the scientists and engineers can determine the best methods of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
In the end, it needs to work like this. Politicians need to be the cheerleaders of renewable energy if we’re to have any hope of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. They need to provide the money, and promote public support for renewable energy through whatever means they have available to them. The business and academic worlds are then responsible for doing the research and developing new, more efficient methods of using these energy resources, and bringing them to the public. In the end, the consumer will choose the most efficient and economical source of energy, but it all starts at the top, with the politician.
Permalink | 11 comments