"Let them eat cake."
We aren't ready for the future.
Democrats will pay a huge political price until they acknowledge the bitter and inconvenient truth that we still depend on fossil fuels. Americans may be ready to rise to the occasion of the end of fossil fuels--but only if there are realistic, affordable alternatives in place.
Not everyone can afford a Tesla. Most Americans who work need a car. Democrats who talk about switching to electric cars, using mass transit to commute, and bicycling for errands--or who minimize the sticker shock of five dollar gasoline--come across as out-of-touch elitists with luxury tastes and opinions. Drive less? Sure. Our nanny will do the driving. Or the Uber driver. Not me. I am saving the planet.
Try riding a bicycle to shop for a two-pack of paper towels and a small watermelon, or better yet, groceries for a family. We live in suburbs, not villages. Americans own cars. We need them to live our lives.
I presume climate activist progressive Democrats are in the ballpark on the science. We are burning fossil fuels and we can measure that we are changing the greenhouse gases in the air. Climate activists call it an existential threat. Maybe so. It is certainly unknown territory and we should err on the side of caution. I see myself that small changes in the ocean temperature in the western Pacific create el Nina and el Niño events that make the difference between floods and droughts in Oregon.
 |
| Drought and Fires in Oregon |
 |
| Sea level rise in Miami |
Americans--Democrats especially--did not prepare for this political moment. We aren't practically and technologically ready to get off fossil fuels. Democrats urge university endowments and public pension funds divest from oil companies for the good of the planet. Democrats celebrate stopping pipelines, banning drilling on federal lands, and decommissioning nuclear power plants. They know what they don't like. But now many Americans find themselves angry that oil is in short supply, that refineries are inadequate, and that prices are up because demand exceeds supply. Not you? OK. Other people. Lots of other people.
I often write about political hypocrisy. I describe Republicans who defend “all-American” patriotic values but tolerate Trump overthrowing an election. I see it in people who are “pro life” for fetuses, but stingy when it comes to caring for infants and toddlers in poverty. But it is also hypocritical for climate activists to pretend pollution and fossil fuels are OK, if the dirty work is done in Saudi Arabia, not here. Democrats condemn energy companies and call them price gougers when they are reluctant to make the very capital investments we condemned them for making last year. Democrats scoff at coal and condemn Joe Manchin. "Clean coal. Ha!" But Democrats subsidize electric cars fueled with electricity generated with that coal. People who cook food and heat their homes with natural gas want to ban fracked natural gas. Democrats need to face looking in the mirror.Scarce fossil fuels are not an accident. Democrats have proudly owned this issue--until now. High prices were supposed to be good, a market signal that would nudge Americans toward conservation, alternative fuels, and bicycles. It is a win--except that Americans feel trapped and hate them.
Progressive Democrats want to be seen as the defenders of working people, but it rings hollow. One huge group of working people are those who produce coal, oil, and natural gas. Most jobs lost from fossil fuels move people from family-wage jobs into something much less. Democrats talk about "retraining" and modern new industries for the 21st century. Is that real, or just wishful thinking? Notice that West Virginia is not a prosperous satellite of Silicon Valley technology, staffed by happy retrained miners. Democrats can pretend nobody is badly hurt by the intended energy transition, but it is willful blindness. The reality is evident in poverty, population decline, and addictions of despair. Voters there vote Republican. Energy company employees in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming do as well. That affects a lot of U.S senators.
The perfect is not simply the enemy of the good. It is the enemy of the politically possible. The solution to the hypocrisy is to admit that we did not do what we needed to do to be ready to divest in fossil fuels. Shame on us. If climate is indeed an existential threat, then Democrats needed to have treated development of alternative energy as an emergency, not an experimental pilot program. I believe most Americans would have risen to the occasion of using less fossil fuel had the groundwork been laid. It wasn't. Wind turbines were hard to site. They wreck the view. They kill birds. Solar panels are made in China; that's no good. Nuclear plants have risks and no state wants to store the waste. Hydropower dams destroy rivers and hurt fisheries. OK. But what that means is that Democrats are in no position to tell Americans to use less fossil fuel. We aren't ready. Apparently it wasn't an existential threat, after all. There is no cake, not at a price people will willingly pay.
[Note: To get this blog daily by email, go to https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
9 comments:
"Democratic policy and messaging comes across as elitist and unrealistic."
This is a right wing talking point. Many Americans have been buying more fuel efficient cars, recycling and generally being energy conscious, for years, and adapting their lifestyles accordingly. Their numbers are growing and market forces are bringing alternative energy costs down. However, like smoking, societal change seems to always face resistance for one reason or another, often for personal profit. Coal country pols allow their communities to suffer because they can blame Democrats, trusting their constituents will remain ignorant of the real causes.
The problems lies with the idea that people are being "forced" to face the climate and environmental issues. This is the result of politicizing the issue by Republicans, who use it as a wedge, pandering to those who refuse to accept what is happening right in front of them. No Republican politicians will admit that Climate is a crisis demanding bipartisan action.
The fact is that we all will be "forced" eventually. It won't matter whether we are ready or not.
"Not everyone can afford a Tesla".
True, but in addition to that many of those who CAN afford an electric vehicle can't get one anyway. Maybe after a year's wait?
"Using mass transit to commute".
Given Democratic policies on street-level law enforcement, even those who'd like to go this route cannot because of crime and filth.
As with their armed security, chichi Democratic policymakers are aloof to everyday American concerns on energy and transport.
"Aloof" equals "superior". But better morals and bigger brains should mean better results for everyone. Americans are in free fall.
Yesterday I drove back to Ashland from Portland. I usually drive at around 72 mph and average 25 mpg. Yesterday I drove at 65 mph and got around 30 mpg. Had I driven at the previous unpopular cap of 55 mph I would have probably averaged 40 mpg. I wasn’t willing to make that choice.
We still depend on fossil fuels because that has been our priority. An indication of how much it’s distorted our outlook is the fact that we think of them as ‘cheaper’ than the alternatives, in spite of all the havoc they’re wreaking.
There may always be a use for fossil fuels, but the less we use them the better. Most of us reading this blog will be leaving dying off fairly soon. We’re the lucky ones. Our offspring will be stuck with the mess we left behind.
If we had a heart, we'd change our priorities ASAP.
Americans did prepare for this energy/environment situation by electing Al Gore as President in 2000. Unfortunately, the system we all love and respect replaced him with a warmonger President from an oil-dependent state. Too often, the small steps informed citizens can take are trumped by our unbalanced national power structure, and this is discouraging. Gene Lyons' op-ed in Sunday's Medford Mail Tribune states it pretty clearly.
For years here in the Portland area, Priuses have been very common. Indeed, they have been far more common than other hybrids.
The reason? Priuses are visually identifiable as hybrids, which means that not only do you get higher gas mileage, you get to virtue signal about what a wonderful person you are. Toyota can charge a higher price for a Prius than other makers can for their hybrids because virtue signaling is worth thousands of dollars to some people.
It has been said that Priuses drive around trailing little clouds of smug.
That smugness has been noticed, and its targets are not amused.
There is no argument here because we are going to do nothing. If we were in a war we MIGHT mobilize . Could you feature rationing ? Or buying bonds to help find climate solutions? We will cook like the frog in the frying pan. Kiss your grandchildren and greet grand children goodbye. The hordes from the south are coming and it’s every man and woman for themselves. The oil industry is systematically murdering the species and us along with it. Band aids are make out of plastic , the perfect metaphor.
Now that I know my Prius is making me smug, I think I'll run right out and get myself an RV. A small care probably isn't safe for someone my age to be driving anyway.
The answer to our energy problem and greenhouse gas situation is simple. All the above fuel sources will get us through until renewables dominate the transportation energy fuel mix.
But remember transportation is a significant factor in the generation of greenhouse gases; it isn’t the only source of greenhouse gases. We must address all sources of greenhouse gases and many of them we will find we don’t want to replace or in the case of volcanoes have absolutely no effect on no matter what our legislative policies might be.
Post a Comment