#905 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday April 22)
Good morning and Happy Earth Day!
QUICK EARTH DAY MEMORY
Earth Day started back in 1970, the year following my Bar Mitzvah. At the time, I was quite the environmentalist, so much so that I jumped on the bandwagon and organized our school’s first Earth Day programming. The events included an announcement at an assembly, an article in the school paper, and an organized walk around the neighborhood to the local grocery-anchored shopping center to pick up trash. Along this boondoggle of a field trip, we picked up all the trash we could find and grabbed an ice cream while there. The actual effect on the environment admittedly was de minimus. But perhaps the kernel of awareness planted on that day has blossomed in some participants into a personal connection to environmental action and caring for the Earth…
TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT COULD YIELD NOTHING AT ALL
I was thinking the other day about the notion that “you can have it all.” It certainly is the way the Republicans and Democrats in Congress view the world. There is little in the way of compromise and, when it does materialize, we are both shocked and grateful. The infrastructure bill, the COVID relief bill and the bail-out after the Global Financial Crisis are all examples of when both sides came together when immediate action was required in a time of crisis. In nearly every other circumstance in recent times, with respect to nearly every other issue, each side will craft a bill that contains everything it wants and none of what the other side might want. They know full well that the other side will never agree to its terms. They often seem unconcerned that their overreach most assuredly will result in defeat of their treasured bill. They do it in the name of political theatrics—performative art for their most ardent supporters. By this calculus, they conclude that it might be better to use the defeat as an issue they can run on in the next election.
WITH ME, IT’S ALL OR NOTHING
It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. Yet it increasingly seems that in the halls of Congress our representatives are adopting the famous phrase of Ado Annie from Oklahoma!: “With me, it’s all or nothing.” The Republicans are paralyzed by the demands of their presumptive presidential nominee not to take action on an immigration reform bill they themselves negotiated, while House leadership is paralyzed by the threat of the far-right to do nothing that could be viewed as compromise.
Too often, the ideologues in each party are so adamant in their point of view that they can’t see room for compromise, much less even see merit in some of the other side’s argument (and it is even more difficult to reach any sort of reasonable compromise with single issue organizations like Political Action Committees).
An earlier example of government’s failure to compromise is the Democratic attempt to pass a voting rights bill. Certainly, I agree with the majority of the bill and I suspect most Americans—if they knew the contents—also would agree. But there was significant Republican opposition. There is a world where the Democrats could have compromised on some of the provisions of the bill in order to earn the votes of the moderate Republicans and we would have enjoyed greater positive movement on voting rights than what ultimately was passed. But the Democrats remained unwavering in their commitment to the entirety of the bill, guaranteeing its defeat. Perhaps the calculus is that some Democrats could run on the fact that they supported the bill and the Republicans rejected it. This is not that dissimilar to the Republicans running on the lack of an immigration bill. In each case, what we needed was a compromise. It seems few in politics see half a loaf as better than none at all.
The mantra that we can have it all extends to energy policy and environmentalism. We all know of the pollution and greenhouse gases coming out of coal burning power plants. but we also should be concerned with power plants that have “dammed up” the West, changing water courses and wreaking havoc on fish populations and other aspects of important ecosystems.
We want to believe that “clean energy,” now defined primarily as wind, solar, and geothermal power, will replace power generated from fossil fuels. Once it is pointed out that it is nearly impossible to make a meaningful dent in fossil fuels and hydroelectric plants based upon current technology, the vast amounts of land required to support such technologies, and the shortages in various elements required, a supporter will claim that “we will simply find a new technology.” But we really can’t make that bet. While I would hope that we are able to find a means of carbon sequestration, finally crack the question of nuclear fusion, or are able to store more energy effectively, we aren’t there yet.
The only way I can see to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel powered power plants is through alternatives that exist today. Certainly, some of that can be achieved through wind and solar energy, but there is a gap. The most obvious solution that could bridge the gap until new technologies are identified is nuclear energy—at least in the short term. One need only look to the relative positions of France (which embraces nuclear) and Germany (which rejects it) to see who has the greater sources of energy and energy independence. If you want to reduce the effect of global climate change and air pollution, something’s got to give. We live in a world where we can’t always get the most optimal result—rather, we have to choose the best from the sub-optimal alternatives.
Have a great day,
Glenn