The British Government produced this climate challenge video for its citizens, I find it very interesting not so much for the content, but for the fact that the government put it out. As I watched the video (many of the same themes you may have seen from the film “An Inconvenient Truth”) I was struck by the fact that this was a government talking; I kept asking myself - if this same video could ever be made by our current administration in the United States?I like to stay fairly apolitical and balanced in discussions, this blog no exception, however occasionally I feel it is ok to ask some delicate questions, especially when they involve topics I feel are very serious and may have long term impact. If the answer to the above question is no, then why? Is the answer due to the personal beliefs of those in the administration? Or is it due to entrenched big-business-special-interest in Washington crippling Congress? Or is it possibly due to some political expediency to not alarm the populace? According to the Governor of California the debate on climate change is over, the science is irrefutable, and in the absence of federal leadership, his State and others are taking matters into their own hands.
Yet why is this? This is America after all; we are supposed to be smarter and better than this; in fact many a big business is asking, indeed pleading, that the Federal Government put regulations in place, so that business can better plan for and price environmental and carbon risk into their strategic plans. Leading candidates from both political parties have placed significant emphasis on environmental and climate change issues in their campaigns. Not a day goes by that we don’t see news or magazine article discussing the issue. But what from our Executive Leadership? At the least we hope the Bush-Cheney Administration is no longer blacking out and censoring entire sections of Climate Science Reports.
At best we see President Bush has now acknowledged the concept of climate change and introduced an alternative plan to specific carbon cap and trade. Some skeptics felt this plan was an effort to preempt other more stringent curbs. It is however a start, a few short years ago the president would barely utter the words. When I read news reports about White House initiatives on climate change I cannot help but ponder the origins of the position change, the legitimacy of the effort, and the commitment of the most senior Administration staff to change.
If renewable energy technologies are to grow and compete with fossil fuel burning energy generation, then the fully allocated cost of generating energy with fossil fuel must be priced-in at the market (carbon emissions, government subsidies, etc) through a carbon cap and trade mechanism, or similar allocation scheme. Otherwise, the cleaner and newer renewable energy technologies will be handicapped and encounter slower market adoption rates. Are we as a nation ready for the challenge?
Matt, thank you for bringing this up. Today is Super Tuesday, the primary for many states, among them my own (MA). Looking at the platforms of all the candidates, it’s notable how many of them make an effort to bring up renewable energy, energy security, and sustainability. Including John McCain, the leading Republican contender. It’s remarkable how the rest of the Republican party has tried to distance itself from the current administration in a number of ways–and as you point out, why then does the administration keep going in the same direction? I don’t think it’s all personal beliefs, though it’s hard to imagine they don’t play a role. Both Bush and Cheney have histories with oil and coal (this is just one story of countless others on this topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm) .While it can be said that it’s completely normal for politicians these days to allow their personal interests to influence policy, at heart it is highly undemocratic and anti-American.
Will the new president be any better? We can hope. The Bush administration is handing over an 8-year handicap in the race for world leadership on energy issues, a race in which America should have been front-runner long ago instead of trying desperately now to catch up. I think we as constituents need to vote for the candidate we feel has the greatest dedication to energy security and sustainability; I wish the media would focus on this issue more they do, but it’s certainly part of the atmosphere now, which is more than can be said for the last election (Gore’s efforts notwithstanding). Hopefully, Matt, worries about the current administration’s commitment to change will be moot: it’s unfortunate that we’ll have another year before real action can happen–between a few lame-duck months and time for the new president to start enacting policy–but at least we hardly have time for regression. The Bush administration has, however grudgingly, set the ball in motion. It’s up to the next president to hit it home.