The Climate End Game
Should liberal or conservative politics have anything to do with how we address the climate issue? I don't think it should.
Look at Iraq and the war on terrorism. Conservatives argue (and I agree) that our war on terrorism involves everybody (conservative and liberal walks of life). This war on Western civilization is an attack on liberal values, thus it boggles my mind that liberals want to pull out of Iraq and create a haven for terrorists. The issue shouldn't be polarized.
Why should politics have anything to do with issues of survival?
Now, I really don't have much of a clue of how we address climate change. But why can't pursuing a move away from fossil fuels be something that both liberals and conservatives can agree on? Using less Middle Eastern oil? Using less Venezuelan oil? Pushing for less pollution? Pushing for more efficient energy means and greater cost savings?
If France, under a conservative leader, can continue to push green policies, why can't the United States? RealClimate explains:
France has a per capita carbon emission of 1.64 tonnes, compared to 2.67 tonnes for the U.K and 5.61 tonnes for the US. So, if anybody has earned the right to rest on their laurels and pontificate to the rest of the developed world about what they should be doing, you'd think it would be France. Far from it, under the leadership of Nicolas Sarkozy, France has embarked on an ambitious program of deeper carbon reductions. In introducing the measures, Sarkozy said "The guiding principle is that the cost to the climate — the carbon cost — will be integrated into planning of all major public projects, and into all deliberations affecting the public." These measures include: a commitment that all new buildings would be net energy producers by 2020, incandescent lighting would be banned by 2010, buyers of efficient vehicles would be subsidized, drivers of inefficient vehicles would be penalized, and road construction would be severely curtailed in favor of expanded rail travel using state-of-the-art French TGV technology. A carbon tax is also being seriously contemplated. These proposals are the result of an intensive months-long series of discussions with scientists and stakeholders such as environmental nongovernmental organizations, industry representatives, and labor union representatives.
It should be noted that a majority of France's electrical power comes from nuclear power plants (which can partly explain France's lower per capita carbon emission).
In France, as of 2002, EDF — the country's main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country's 59 nuclear power plants, which produce 79% of its power, making it the world's leader in production of nuclear power by percentage.
In the United States, nuclear power only supplies about 20% of the electrical needs.
That said, I believe there are things that can be implemented that will not weigh too heavy on political ideologies. There can be common ground -- it is just a matter of putting down shields for the sake of making our environment cleaner, our country safer (i.e., not subsidizing foreign oil and terrorism), and making our wallets heavier.
Comments
On the flip side of that, it seems as though little is really being done to curb the demand for energy in our modern society. I don't necessarily believe that the government should be enforcing carbon taxes and cutting consumer choices on the market, but I do think that something needs to get done. What that 'something' is, however, isn't quite clear yet.
As to the question of liberals v. conservatives on the environment, we can't escape the fact that energy production uses resources to varying degrees and leaves a mark on the planet. If we begin to focus more on nuclear power you can bet that people will protest it. If we focus on more oil we'll see protests for that. If we mine the moon for helium-3, we'll have picketers for that. And if we do nothing and energy costs continue to rise I'll start protesting myself.
I wouldn't trust our government to slap together a decent peanut butter and jelly sandwich, let alone locate permanent and secure storage for large amounts of nuclear waste.
My personal preference is for storing the waste in a site such as Yucca Mountain, where we can get it out if it turns out to be useful [3]. Second place is dumping it into subduction zones, where it gets incorporated into the long-term geochemical cycle (1-10 million years). Firing it into the Sun is doable, but is measurably higher in both risk [4] and protest [5].
John
[1] Which does not and cannot exist.
[2] You know - the same folks that think that steak comes in neat little wrappers in the butcher's shop and don't want to deal with the problems of actually raising and slaughtering the animals.
[3] As all of that aluminum waste did, and much of the steel waste...
[4] Due to the possibility of an accident during launch, which would spread the radioactivity further than Chernobyl ever thought of doing.
[5] Witness the protests during the launch and flight of a mere 72 pounds of plutonium in Cassini.
Cassini was flown simply because (A) there was no other way to power the spacecraft, and (B) the shielding outweighed the fuel by a significant factor (and (C) it was a relic of the Cold War). And it only had 72 pounds of plutonium; worst case, all of Cape Canaveral becomes a new Rocky Flats. Flying a few million tons of nuclear waste (including all low-level waste as well) is somewhat more dangerous...
John