The environment is probably the most important and – even now - least appreciated issue there is. Matter of fact, to call the environment an issue is to diminish it. Welfare reform is an issue. Iraq is an issue. The environment is life, period.
We ought never to forget that we are living on the delicate, not very thick skin of this big ball of rock, and if we somehow mess it up too badly, everyone and everything is going to die. Now that I’ve depressed you, the good news is that people are now far more aware of the environment than they were when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s.
But we are still not aware enough. And here’s the problem. We have lots of people who think that they are true environmentalists doing their part to save the world because they put their plastic bottles in the recycling bin. Sometimes they even remember not to put their aerosol cans in the trash.
On the other hand, many of us have encountered radical environmentalists, one of whom once told me that I was the moral equivalent of a Nazi because I had central air conditioning.
One thing you learn covering politics is that insulting people is generally not a good way to win votes. I’ve heard far too little about environmental policies from any of the presidential candidates. That’s because their advisors don’t think it wins votes.
I am very glad that Governor Jennifer Granholm cares about renewable energy. She has done us all a service in raising awareness of the potential of wind power.
But raising unrealistic hopes may actually backfire. Last week I talked to Skip Pruss, the governor’s special advisor on renewable energy. I was skeptical of the governor’s claims that our push for wind and solar power could generate 19,000 new jobs.
Pruss assured me that was a correct figure. And he said that many of these jobs would be created when Michigan’s pioneering use of wind power becomes an inspiration to other states.
Then, our idle tool-and-die shops will be called back to service making windmill parts, which other states would eagerly buy. That is a nice dream, but defies common sense.
But what really defies common sense is that energy bills now before the Michigan Senate set renewable targets – but don’t mandate compliance in any effective way.
If we really want to get serious about creating green energy jobs, we have to pass legislation that will create them. Yes, that takes political will, and the special interests will squawk. But we are living healthier lives today because of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
Not to mention the Environmental Protection Agency, and the much hated fuel economy standards for cars. Eventually, if we survive as a species, we’ll stop using the term “green jobs” because all jobs will be expected to be more or less green. Sadly, that time seems still a long way away.
I appreciate your opening paragraph. It does seem batcrap crazy to think of the environment as just another partisan political football. It still shocks me that I read comments here (among other places) that promote the idea that it's acceptable to dump toxins in our waters, that cleaning them up is not possible because it eats into corporate profits... We have the weird idea hereabouts that we should have zero-tolerance for individuals and their behaviour, but we need to support the corporate person in their quest for higher profits, no matter the cost to the rest of us. Sick, sad world.
BTW, I agree with this gal:
"The other day a lady said to me. 'You know, everybody says you are so liberal, but I think all you are doing is expressing common sense.'"
Posted by: Any Salyer | May 26, 2008 at 02:58 PM
The environment becomes a political football in the first instance when environmental extremeists falsley accuse their political opponents of "poisoning" the environment and causing harm to humans that medical science does not support. Politics is further the main issue when environmental extremists pay no attention to cost-benefit analysis and instead say, "Clean every particle up. No matter what it costs. No matter what incremental benefit there is from cleaning up that last particle." At that point, we are no longer talking about practical public policy, but political game-playing.
By the way, besides the spokespeople for environmental activist groups, public radio reporters and academics, when was the last time that any spokesperson for industry was invited to be a Jack Lessenberry interview subject?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 26, 2008 at 04:24 PM
The extremist point that Anonymous represents (poorly): We can't clean anything up because enviro-nazis say we have to get the last particle, so we won't do anything, nyah nyah nyah!
We have to live on this orb, and fouling the place you eat, sleep and breathe because it's very profitable to a few very powerful and wealthy folks in the short run is still foolish and shortsighted.
Posted by: Any Salyer | May 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM