The Silent Energy Debate
SUV drivers with W'04 bumper stickers pollute my neighborhood. In reaction, neighbors are planning rail systems that will never go faster than ten mph. They inexplicably believe they can design the system to meet the needs of no one in particular, not even themselves, and it will still be useful for the next fifty years. "Progressives" must reject both the conspicuous consumers and the liberal Luddites that dominate current environmental debate.
If being "Progressive" means we favor progress, we must favor new technology, and not just hybrid cars, solar power and windmills. I read yesterday in "Wired" that a bacteria has been designed which converts 80% of organic hydrogen to hydrogen gas. This does not solve any immediate problem, and certainly does not solve global warming, but it seems to be a step toward a viable future. Like everyone, I have been disappointed by an administration that claims it "makes decisions based on the science." Nonetheless, investment in the basic science of energy should be our top priority. One side moralizes about how we hate America, others moralize about how we are destroying the planet, and the fiddler plays on. I was disappointed by the New York Times article, yet somewhere between Green and Libertarian, there is a true center and opportunity for progress.
We obviously should all admit that global warming is real and is caused by humans. Reduce/Reuse/Recycle is common sense, when this is economically feasible.
When you reference Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma", perhaps you are suggesting that individuals should restrict themselves to small areas, eat locally produced food and the like. Thomas Malthus lives on when we are told that economic growth can not be sustainable. I may not personally object to a geographically constrained lifestyle, but that does not mean we have the right to impose it on others. Jello Biafra, whom I highly respect, jokes that we should vandalize the SUV's. Guess what? If that is our environmental policy, then we are no different from George W. Bush, in that we are starting a war that gets us nowhere.
Coal research gets more government funding than any other energy technology, and oil seems to be at root behind the current war in Iraq. We promote wasteful technologies that damage the planet. Far too little attention gets paid to nuclear fusion.
We need to invest in basic science toward alternative energy sources that are sustainable. I submit that any other approach is not viable policy.
These debates are all nonsensical. The only answer from a biological and planetary perspective is a radical drop in consumption. The idea that capitalism can survive by use of technology is shear nonsense. I watch the gas guzzling boats go out to catch a few fish and wonder where people's minds are. I see Humvee's on the road along side SUVs and other gas guzzlers. I watch the third world mimic our lust for motorized power. These are all very real. The idea that some magic bullet technology will solve this problem mimics the greedy mentality that asks a magic bullet drug to cure a disease that resulted from excesses and poor health habits. We are suicidal.
We wage war when peace is the only answer to a stable world. We have a government populated by people beholden to the interests that are causing the problem. If we throw out one bunch the other will simply replace them with more people willing to serve consumer driven capitalism.
The choices that will make real change happen are radical. When will that be acknowledged?
Are Mikuleck and George W. Bush two sides of the same coin? Each just as fearful? Each just as dangerous? Each just as mainstream in their thinking? Each just as willing to impose their paranoia on others?
Regardless of who is right and wrong (and yes, I have been wrong on occassion, just not this time), there is too little debate here. Now, I am curious. What radical changes does Mikuleck propose? Maybe, I agree with some of them.
Context: Full thread at Rockridge Nation
A Related Link, and reason for some optimism: Evangelicals and Climate Change
Where Action Will Take Place? (and be vetoed by the US): United Nations
Labels: energy
posted by David Rasmussen at 9:33 AM
<< Home