A New Political Environment

I was very glad this week when Barack Obama was elected the 44th President. While I did not support him in this election, I supported the Green Party, there is no doubt that he was the better of the two major party candidates. I was also happy to know that a multi-ethnic “mixed-race” family will be in the White House. These facts alone will make for a better political climate than we have seen for the past 8 years.

While the latest financial crisis has become the main issue for politicians and citizens alike, I hope that this new Obama administration begins to deal with another major crisis: the environmental crisis. As climate change has become the top environmental issue, this is obviously the place to start. A majority of Americans finally understand the gravity of this situation, even after years of privately funded media and political campaigns that attempted to obscure and confuse the public about the science. It worked for the most part, but the science has become stronger and much, much more difficult to refute and obsure. A recent article written by a number of climate scientists, and lead by James Hanson (one of the foremost experts on climate science), sates that:

“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that.”

This is a serious issue and requires major social changes in order to begin to address it. Scientists are saying we have basically past the tipping point. This means we need to act fast. This cannot be put off any longer.

Today’s NY Times includes an op-ed by Al Gore on this issue. I think it is a pretty good piece. He also recently wrote one for the Wall Street Journal, which I don’t think was as good. Obviously, he knows his audience and the WSJ article is all about “sustainable capitalism.” In the NYT, Gore points out that a transformation in our energy system is possible. It will take huge government investment, but this is not unprecedented. Government has always played a role in investing in technology, albeit mostly military technology. The most recent government investment in the financial sector is another example of how government can spend lots of money any way it wants to in order to pursue certain goals. In the case of the financial bailout the goal happens to be to maintain the powerful Wall Street order, and prop up the capitalist system.

We have seen what government can do if it is motivated to act fast. Money printed, handed out, and invested. I won’t get into a critique of this bailout, as I think it is written by the wealthy and powerful and heavily skewed towards the wealthy and powerful. But clearly, government can develop a new energy infrastructure if it deems that it is necessary. The NYT piece points towards government investment and leadership in dealing with a major crisis that is already impacting global society. We need to realize that the notion that capitalism will adopt sustainable approaches because they are profitable ignores the extant power relations that drive our current energy industry and climate crisis.

The government, with the support of the people and in the name of the people, must step in to plan a better energy system that helps to resolve this impending crisis. For instance, if the government is going to be handing out money to banks, and other financial institutions, and now is talking about bailing out Detroit, why don’t they attach some strings such as promoting alternative energy projects and better public transport? Car companies can be pushed towards changing technology and finance towards important social investments. We have seen what the idea of unbridled “free” markets bring. Wealth for the few elites, struggle for the rest of us, and climate destruction.

However, we cannot rely solely on the government to fix this problem. It will take community action and movements to make it happen, but the amount of money necessary will also require some larger institutions. What is more, it is not only about technological fixes and new infrastructure. There is no way that we can address this problem without including energy conservation measures, and this will likely be the most important component. This requires more than replacing old light bulbs with high efficiency light bulbs, but changing the way we live our lives. These changes will be enormous as well, and will require a major transformation in our social goals. But that is for another blog.

Regular people and communities need to be politically active in order for new measures to be successful. The environmental crisis we face is at least as serious as (in the long-run more serious than) the financial crisis that we are witnessing. I am hopeful that the new climate of revived interest in political processes and issues will translate into increased awareness and action by the people on serious environmental concerns.