Comments on: Voting For The Environment – Where The Democrats Stand.

By: david

david — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:42:42 +0000

It’s OK to be pessimistic about this stuff Ryan – it gets to all of us sometimes. I honestly think we need to focus on the bigger picture in terms of policy, and the smaller changes will come along with it.

On a personal level, though, I do everything I can to reduce my energy usage, my consumption of goods, and my footprint. It makes me feel more optimistic about what can be done long term.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:39:51 +0000

I realized that I might have been being too pessimistic in my last post! Tim, I think you’re right that a lot of things can be linked back to energy needs. Maybe this is the right place to start. Then we can focus on thinkgs like pesticides, overfishing, etc. However I worry that it might be too late by the time that happens, especially with overfishing. I think my frustration comes not because I think that we’re all doomed, it’s just that I think we could be moving faster on things. But maybe I just need to be happy with progress at any pace!

By: Tim Hurst

Tim Hurst — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:57:40 +0000

Ryan, tell me if you think is too much of a reach. Plastic bags are made from petroleum products. The House-proposed energy bill last fall included a provision to cut the massive tax breaks that the oil companies got and redistributing those breaks to renewable energy production. That redistribution of tax breaks was threatened a veto by Bush and removed from the final version.

If the Big Oil does not get those subsidies would the (exceedingly cheap) price of plastic bags go up? They might.

I know it’s not the strongest argument of such a linkage! But it is those types of connections that we need to be discussing.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:08:36 +0000

Thanks for the comments. I do think think that energy can and probably will be the keystone, with the underlying issue fighting climate change. I do still think this leaves out a number of important issues that I feel aren’t getting addressed. For example, we can certainly invest in more renewable fuels sources, but that won’t do anything to address plastic bags that end up in landfills and waterways. When are we going to address that? After climate change investment in energy? I don’t see how that would fall under the energy umbrella. But maybe energy is a good place to start.

When I see politicians focusing on renewable energy, I do worry that what a lot of people are promising is a “free lunch”. In other words, most Americans don’t want to be inconvenienced, and politicians won’t run on a platform the promises to inconvenience anyone. Most Americans don’t want to drive less, they want to drive the same amount (perhaps even more) but have some new “technology” make their driving carbon-neutral. What I feel that most people want to hear on the environment is that they can keep on driving and consuming as much as they did before, but the difference now is that their presidential candidate will promise to make sure it’s “carbon-neutral”. I don’t see any proposal of trying to change the way people think about resource consumption (whether energy, water, forests, etc.) and consumption in general.

I definitely hear ya that a candidate couldn’t win by focusing on special situations regarding the environment. What I’d like to see though is a candidate who steps up and says: “As a country we’re going to act like good stewards of this planet. Whatever issue comes up, whether it’s broad energy policy or listing polar bears as endangered, we’re going to act like responsible tenants of the planet. Going forward we’re going to make decisions that aren’t just in the best interest of our generation, but also for all generations to come, perhaps sometimes to the inconvenience of our own.”

Not sure how realistic that is but it would sure be refreshing!