What’ll it take to get pro-business conservatives and environmentalists into real dialogue?
- David Goldstein
- Energy Program Co-Director, San Francisco
- Blog | About
- Posted August 8, 2008 in Green Enterprise , Solving Global Warming
In his July 28 opinion piece for Salon, Joe Romm argues that energy efficiency may allow the nation to avoid the construction of any more polluting power plants. He holds, as I do in NRDC’s energy work, that America (and the rest of the world) have an immense resource of energy efficiency that not only doesn’t pollute but costs less than conventional energy and often improves the quality of energy services.
In response to his Senate testimony about energy efficiency, he notes in the blog that Senator George Voinovich “said that this was ‘poppycock.’” Romm goes on to say that “conservatives simply have a blind spot when it comes to energy efficiency…”
Is this true? Are conservatives simply irrational in dismissing the merits of energy efficiency? Or do they think we are missing something? I invite comments on this blog from conservative skeptics of energy efficiency: how can we reach a common understanding of what the opportunity is? For my part, I will start discussing some of the ways energy efficiency can help get America out of its economic travails in forthcoming blogs.
In my book, Saving Energy, Growing Jobs, I lamented the lack of dialogue between environmentalists and self-labeled “pro-business” advocates. I argued that environmental protection should be seen as an economic development opportunity because environmental protection policies promote the innovation and competition that enhances growth.
What would it take to promote a real dialogue between pro-business interests and environmentalists? Besides inviting discussion on this blog, I am also working with a colleague, Bill Roller, of the Berkeley Group Education Foundation, to develop a one-day workshop to try to make some progress on the issue of how to encourage constructive dialogue for mutually beneficial results. This workshop will be held in San Francisco on the 19th of September.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Max Gladwell — Aug 8 2008 03:01 PM
Unfortunately, the environmental movement has become highly politicized. It always has been, but now it really matters. Hardcore conservatives immediately tune out when they hear anything about the environment, especially if Al Gore is involved. The debate needs a fundamental re-framing if we're to recruit and persuade conservatives.
The reality is that it's not about the so-called environment or the planet. It's about us. There's no value to (and no moral argument can be made) preserving the environment or the planet for its own sake. Why? Just so it can be consumed by the sun in 4 billions years? It's for our continued prosperity, health, and survival. This is 100% pure selfish motivation, the only motivation that's ever accomplished anything.
When liberals and greenies get all hippie about the issues, conservatives tune out, and I don't blame them. Because this breed of environmentalist is not making sense. It's no different from an evangelical Christian citing the Bible in a scientific debate.
Energy is a perfect example. You can talk about global warming til you're blue in the face and cite the top scientists in the world. Certain conservatives will never buy it precisely because Gore is synonymous with the issue. But they will buy cost savings, national security, economic security, and health. These are just as compelling if not more compelling than climate change. They are immediate and tangible.
We wrote about this in a three-part series: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/07/how-to-debate-climate-change-with-conservative-skeptics-part-2/
Don Cantrell — Aug 8 2008 03:44 PM
To begin with, we are a country of high demands. Since our struggle in the beginning, we have developed a sense of comfort. We splurge and waste because it is the American way. Many countries have stated that the USA wastes more in one day that some countries use in a year. We feel that we deserve it. Unfortunately, we are wrong.
On the topic of what and who can do the most to help conserve the resources and energy, being depleted in the United States. Each political party wants to blame the other. Each working person wants to blame the ones on welfare or the big corporates. The truth of the matter is that "We, all of us, are the consumers of the resources and energy". All of America has an input to the survival or destruction of this country.
If I may suggest that the leaders of the government, businesses, interests groups, and the individual come together as a whole and produce a plan that will bring this country back on its feet. If you will study history, only when we (Americans) were in deep trouble or despair, were we able to come up with solutions to the problems that faced us at the time. Stop blaming each other and work together to restore this country to a productive, strong and safe nation that it was in the past.
I gladly support any group or individuals that try to inform and persuade government, companies, and individuals to look to the future and attempt to make this a better place for our future generations to maintain and develop.
Gee Man — Aug 8 2008 05:30 PM
I think Americans more than anyone else are reactionary. Regardless of the topic at hand, whatever someone else tells them do, they'll push back against it. It's apparent in our mistrust of government. It's not that we were told to slow down to 55 out of the best national intentions, it's that our government told us how to live. I'm astounded at the resentment toward that period of time.
So there's that. In addition we're a country of consumers by policy. I don't think this is necessarily a reflection of some true American spirit. Any country where the citizens were encouraged to consume would do the same. It's a pretty basic human drive.
A combination of (1) getting politicians to change and push policy that encourages less consumption (tarrifs, taxes, more industry regulation) and (2) selling efficient products (maybe mandated efficient products by policy) seems to be the way to go.
Something like CAFE for all products. (note that the CAFE implementation was a disaster, but that's policy, not intent).