The green movement has fallen into a thinking trap by insisting on the immediate replacement of carbon-based energy with solar and wind-generated sources. I believe they are right there is credible evidence of global warming and rising ocean levels, and that solar-or-wind energy is clean. I think they are wrong to ignore the high conversion costs to transform the world. If you don’t believe this, just look at the yellow-vest protests rocking France and consider the estimated $93 trillion cost of the Green New Deal. Remember, government policies are supposed to be for the people.
I oppose many current green policies (such as the Paris Accord) because they conflate scientific fact and scientific theory. For example, faunal succession is a scientific fact, but evolution is just a scientific theory (which I accept). It should go without saying, voters don’t want to hand a dying planet to their children; so, the science must be right. Global warming is a scientific fact, but so much else is scientific theory. The Green New Deal is closer to science fiction.
I believe many Democrats really care about global warming; therefore, it is their responsibility to move the conversation toward a patriotic plan for we the people to live on a sustainable planet. The science behind global warming must be open to new ideas and criticism. To this end, solving global-warming first requires a national consensus to do something. It will also require lots of money to convert the entire energy sector. Above all, the process must start with known science and proven technology.
There is currently no national consensus. Polling suggests many Americans (60-70%) believe in global warming, but fewer Americans (28%) are willing to pay $10 a month to fight climate change (source: Associated Press). As a political matter, 71 percent of Democrats, 47 percent of independents, and (only) 15 percent of Republicans believe climate change is a serious problem that requires “immediate action” (source: NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll). This suggests the green movement should focus on the science (climate change) and not the theory (buy a Tesla). It is simple neuro-marketing: everybody wants to go to Heaven…nobody wants to die.
The macro-message of the Green New Deal was that energy-source conversion is going to be really expensive and disruptive. I applaud Senator Markey and Representative Ocasio-Cortez for their big and bold plan that, at least, alerted Americans to big costs ($93 trillion) and lifestyle changes (less air travel). In the USA, the $93 trillion price tag is alarming but not impossible. The Green New Deal was dismissed as a non-starter because of its price tag, which is where the green movement routinely falls apart. Rather than finding “easy money” that creates a win-win solution, green politicians promote pain (higher taxes) and pie in the sky (green jobs that replace old-economy jobs).
The “easy money” can be provided by American energy exports, which will create a trade surplus that can be re-invested into America’s energy future. US petroleum exports will reach 5 million barrels a day next year and 9 million barrels a day by 2025, making America the petrodollar equal to Saudi Arabia (source: Bloomberg). At the current price of $63.26 per barrel, that is $208 billion in annual energy exports, meaning more US labor income and petro-profit taxes, with fewer petrodollars going to foreign competitors. In simple terms, this is the big money needed to make big ideas achievable.
This is where the green movement needs to have patience with the politics and optimism in the science. The problem with Obama’s green ideas was that few believed his economy could possibly pay for it. Open-minded green pols should applaud the Trump economy and campaign for re-investment into (1) common sense measures that diversify America’s energy basket and (2) research into transformative energy sources. Remember, there will be no green tomorrow without we the green people today.
The primary shortcoming of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is that she is a dreamer with little regard for current reality (the here and now in which we the people actually live). The Real Green Deal should have a goal of energy diversification that transforms the world’s energy basket as quickly as is practical (achievable). This means embracing the known clean-energy technologies of today and leaving the unknown clean-energy sources to research science. Common sense suggests Washington stimulus packages to invite energy-conversion enthusiasm. For example, new homes and appliances have done more to reduce energy consumption than any forced-green legislation (such as California’s 73.82 cents-per-gallon gas tax).
The green movement would make lots of Republican friends by acknowledging how important fracking for natural gas has been to reduce carbon emissions in the here and now. In fact, this technology has done more to reduce US carbon emissions over the last ten years than everything done by environmental activists in history combined (source: Washington Examiner). Furthermore, I think Democrats should legislate toward a “clean” nuclear-energy future – because France has proven nuclear power can reduce America’s carbon footprint safely and reliably. These are known transformative solutions.
What frightens me most are the green vested interests that are married to theories and policies of which they are just so damned certain. Isn’t the ultimate goal to prevent friends and family from dying in a ball of fire? Shouldn’t we care more about the next inventive Edison and less about the last charismatic president? Global warming is a big issue that demands big people with big ideas to solve it. I think I’m right about this.