The situation is grave, but not hopeless.
Herbert Rothschild takes me to task for some of my posts. He is correct.
I do see a contradiction between good electoral politics and the Green Agenda. And it is a fair point that my caution about not outrunning public opinion can look indistinguishable from paralysis in the face of an emergency. And he is right that my blog posts have accepted the inevitability of current use of fossil fuels.
People use fossil fuels because they are relatively cheap and available. Since climate change is an existential crisis, we need policies that will work in the USA and in developing countries. The solutions are technological. America needs Manhattan Project-scale developments of alternatives to fossil fuels. Make alternatives cheap and available and people will use them, and not before. It will be controversial and expensive, but I think that this is where Democrats should focus their attention. It is a practical message, congruent with human nature. Humans like things that are cheap and convenient.
Rothschild taught English Literature at Louisiana State University. He is the author of The Bad Old Days, a memoir of his years as a civl rights activist in Louisiana. He lives in Talent, Oregon.
Guest Post by Herbert Rothschild.
Reading Peter’s “Up Close” over time, I’ve gotten the impression--perhaps wrongly, but the blog stresses the importance of perceptions--that Peter faults Democrats (by whom he really means progressive Democrats, his bete noir) for pushing a Green agenda. The most recent instance was on November 10, when he wrote, “Deep down, voters know . . . Democrats hate fossil fuels, even though they depend on them.” On display here are two of his consistent criticisms: stressing the importance of transitioning from fossil fuels is bad electoral strategy, and such advocacy is hypocritical.
Let’s begin with the second criticism--hypocrisy. Peter grossly abuses the concept. Yes, we all have a carbon footprint. Were that a disqualification for working to slow climate change, all of us would be disqualified. Simply to breathe is to expel CO 2 . The crucial point is whether we are actively trying to shrink our carbon footprints both by individual action and through public policy. For five months of the year the solar panels we installed at home put more electricity into the grid than we take out of it. That for seven months the numbers on the two meters are reversed surely cannot render the solar panels irrelevant or me a hypocrite. I’m working at the problem in the ways I can, including by this guest post.
Which brings me to the larger issue--acknowledgement that global warming is a dire reality in the present and poses an even direr threat in the coming years. To ignore or deny our condition is to paralyze us just when we need to be most active. Were Democrats to become the dominant party for years to come by abandoning a Green agenda would benefit the country inconsequentially.
What the movement to stop the U.S.-Soviet arms race accomplished in the 1980s was to persuade almost everyone in the world that a nuclear war must never be fought. So pervasive was that acknowledgement that it completely reversed Ronald Reagan’s stance. It was he and his Republican successor, George H.W. Bush, who accomplished what Democrats, all too many of whom were hesitant to push such an agenda, had never achieved. The human race may still be destroyed by nuclear weapons, but it won’t be because leaders intended to start a nuclear war.
So it must be with the existential threat of climate change. We must convince almost everyone that we cannot continue on our present course. As the costs in human suffering and national treasure escalate, even Republicans will finally get it. To convey by one’s writing that it’s a mistake for candidates to advocate for ending our reliance on fossil fuels as quickly as possible is irresponsibly myopic. We don’t let near-sighted people drive their cars without corrective glasses.
--- --- ---
Herbert Rothschild was an eyewitness to social change, and a participant in it.
There is a huge amount of disinformation out there regarding green energy. Many of the arguments made by conservatives for fossil fuels are simply out of date. The pace of technological advancements in solar and battery design rivals the speed of advancement in the processing power in computers a few years ago. Remember Moore's law? In many cases, in 2022 new solar power production can go up faster, and at a lower price than the fossil fuel equivalent. The average price of an EV has dropped, a lot. The "green premium" still exists, but it is getting smaller all the time.
Thanks Peter for acknowledging Herb Rothschild's insight, but thanks even more to Herb for posting a rational and much needed counterpoint to typical progressive frets about criticism for standing strong on important issues - in the face of possible criticism or even fear of not winning over 'independents'. The Democrats basically won the midterms by not wilting while confronted with so much negative punditry and predictions of doom, even though much of it was 'big lie' worthy. Democrats had much to brag about and would have even done even better,if they could only learn to brag more effectively-
Biden and the Dems accomplished way more very positive results for the country than I have ever observed in a first term in 65 plus years of following U.S. politics.This, even though when I was young and rash and voted for Barry Goldwater (a truth teller in my then view) and Richard Nixon's first term (a fake "Secret Plan to end the war", Whilst I was being shot at in Viet Nam.)