Of the many blogthings that went completely under my radar the past couple of weeks, one of the more interesting developments is that Liberals Against Terrorism's praktike is now also blogging for the Gristmill environmental pro-blog. I always read his stuff seriously, so I'm happy to have more from him, even if he once referred to me as "the hipster John Atkinson," which I think is a kind of horrible thing to call someone you don't even know! And I really admire both his own highly informed, strong perspectives as well as his appreciation of the importance of staying productively engaged with a thoughtful opposing perspectives (e.g. Winds of Change). Which makes his mission statement for Grist kind of intriguing:
There have been a number of developments recently that, in my humble opinion, offer great hope. The first is that the American public, by and large, is well aware of its growing dependence on imported oil. This is more true when pump prices are high, as they are now (and may well be indefinitely). The second is that several powerful new groups--defense hawks, unions, big business, and evangelical Christians--are starting to make noises that they, too, want to push for change, and push hard.
And that's a good thing.
Traditional environmental activists (assuming there is such an identifiable group) should warmly welcome their support, because we're going to need it. They've got big megaphones and beelines to important centers of power. I don't expect all of the factions of this emerging coalition to get along all of the time. Some compromises may need to be made in order to keep everyone on board. But the conversation and the jostling and the disagreement about strategy and tactics are ultimately a source of strength, because the more debate the broader public hears, the better. And those folks know how to win converts to their causes, and no doubt have many lessons to impart. Let's play this game to win.
Nice idea - kudos to Grist for adding him, I don't know if they actively sought him out or if he came to them, but they certainly picked the right guy for the job. In addition to coalition-building, his main focus looks to be energy issues, where there's been a lot of talk recently about the neo-cons and the greens taking up common cause in the name of energy independence (often used kind of euphemistically for more specific oil independence).
But my feelings about this grand alliance are a little, you know, mixed. On some level, I'm just generally skeptical of the goal of energy independence - what does it mean, really, and what can we do with it? In a big-and-getting-bigger, globalized-and-becoming-more-globalized energy market, the causal thread between reducing US oil use and achieving specific security goals is tangled, to say the least. And it might be inimical to following through on the difficult path of security-through-democratic-reforms that we've embarked on - the Middle East without oil revenue could end up looking kind of like today's Africa. Not only that, but a focus on a long-term goal of 'independence' could result in a blind eye towards useful near-term energy resources - I am thinking specifically LNG right now, but also long-term technologies like methane bioproduction and far-out natural gas sources like methane hydrates - that we should be investing in for the same solidly environmental and energy security reasons.
Even assuming the goal of energy independence is feasible and desirable, how does it translate politically? There's no 'energy dependence' coalition to oppose, and when you get down to it, many of the groups in the coalition have pretty divergent and partial views on what technologies will 'solve' this problem. Greens want to use energy independence as a platform to help achieve long-running air pollution goals, force a move to more eco-aesthetically pleasing renewables, and reduce greenhouse emissions through the backdoor; neo-cons are more focused on enabling the US a freer rein to intervene militarily as it pleases in the Middle East, and will in the end take whatever environmental shortcuts are required to achieve their goal (ethanol, clean coal, nuclear, &c). Ditto evangelicals, from what I understand. Corn growers are mostly focused on getting paid. &c.
Everyone can describe their goal as 'energy independence', but they're only able to work together so long as we don't get into the details. What happens if/when we have to, when push comes to shove? Will the neo-cons support the creation of a CO2 emissions market for the US? What will the greens do if the neo-cons end up pushing nuclear power and synfuels made from coal and natural gas? Will the farmers' lobby care if/when (we can dream, right?) we stop pouring money into biofuels? &c, &c
More concretely and immediately - Is there a way for this mess of a coalition to manifest itself politically other than as a big mess of giveaways to subsidize research into and deployment of the various pet technologies of all these factions, for example the much-maligned federal Energy Bill that's coming round the bend (again!)? The provisions supporting domestic oil and gas production get all the (negative) attention, but the old bills also included a bunch of tax incentives and increased research $$ for renewables, and I suspect/hope that those provisions will be included again by the time the 2005 bill makes it through the Senate. Past bills have all been big expensive pork-laden blah blah blahs but what do you expect to happen when you've got a bunch of potential solutions but no real, currently viable solutions - and a lot of politically influential, well-funded groups advocating all of them?
I basically supported the previous versions of the bill, mostly because I doubted we could get anything much better but also because it seemed/seems to me that throwing money around to anybody that asks (well, more or less) is a better approach at this point than a narrower policy that would attempt to prematurely pick a winning technology solution to develop with some kind of magic 'crash program'. I know Praktike opposed the Energy Bill on the last go-round, and would be curious to know what kind of improved bill he sees his hypothetical coalition drawing up.
Maybe it's wrong to focus on federal legislative battles, and the coalition could best use its power to steamroll local 'NIMBY' ('NOT IN MY BACKYARD') or 'BANANAS' ('BUILD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANYWHERE NEAR ANYTHING') groups that are delaying the construction of wind farms, nuclear plants, &c. But not only would that be kind of a dick move, but again, how could we get the greens, neo-cons, &c to agree on a set of policies to support at the local level if they can't really agree at the federal level...?
This coalition is a marriage of political convenience (well, political coalitions aren't usually for love...), and I feel like it will only be sustained until technological solutions capable of actually solving our energy supply issues emerge. So long as it makes political and economic sense to pursue as many different potential solutions as we can afford, there is common cause in lobbying for as much taxpayer $$$ as possible to be diverted to the development of new energy technologies, but ultimately the coalition members' concepts of 'energy independence' may be too far apart to fit under the same big tent for very long.
Of course, that shared interest in keeping research $ flowing to energy tech is probably good for a few legislative go-rounds of wedded bliss. And maybe that's enough. Praktike's right - the more people thinking/talking/paying attention to this issue, the better, even if they don't really agree on the particulars. Not only will an increased spotlight on energy issues encourage our political representatives to move on energy legislation, but it will encourage consumers to think about and hopefully purchase/use more energy efficient technologies, and encourage private investment in relevant sectors. The market is the ultimate battlefield, after all, not Congress, and 'we are the market' &c, right? Well, the market and the laboratory, really... But anyway, I'm pretty tired right now!