The Green Agenda
The Green Agenda
For AllGreen Magazine - Summer Issue 2008
In this upcoming Presidential election, it's time to stop thinking in terms of Red or Blue, and look at who's really seeing Green – for both the nation and CT.
Politics is not for the faint of heart.
A blood sport, where there are essentially only two opponents battling out a victory, our presidential races can almost reach gladiatorial proportions. And we, the hungry spectators, decide who receives the fatal blow.
And now, after an eight year regime coming to its final days, after years of war on two fronts, gas prices spiking to about $135 a barrel, the R-word circulating on Wall Street, hard-working people losing their homes, an energy crisis looming, and this nation facing a loss of international credibility, never, at least to the post-baby boomer generation, have the stakes seemed so high.
We, the People, are calling for a revolution.
Senators Barrack Obama and John McCain are very aware of this fact. Obama, with his rally-cry of “Change We can Believe In” sweeping the country, and McCain's focus on “Leadership” we can trust to bring about new results, both men are willing to answer this call. One a little Blue, the other slightly Red, neither is afraid to reach “across the aisle” to get a job done.
But which one is most willing to try on a shade of Green? Which of these two candidate's will be most capable in revolutionizing how this country approaches environmental legislation? And if he can, how will Connecticut fit in all of it?
“It's a general consensus that anybody will be better [in terms of environmental issues] than what we have right now,” quips Timothy Bowles, Chair of the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund Board. True, in comparison to the Bush administration, any action towards eco-friendly efforts is an improvement. But, because of the comparison, this doesn't leave us with a bar set all that high.
So who's gonna' raise it? Put quite simply, we are.
“Regardless of who wins, it's still up to the state to comply with federal legislation, to see things get done. Change happens at the state level,” remarks Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters.
Certainly state-level legislation and initiatives have been doing their part, even without firm guidance from Washington. The 2004 Connecticut Climate Change Legislation, or Bill 5600, mandates the state curb its carbon emissions up to 85 percent below 2001 levels by the year 2050. Aside from combating climate change, the state has plans to allocate time and money towards greater sustainability, as seen with the passing of Bill 5853, whose purpose is to “study, develop, and fund a plan regarding sustainable harvesting of state forests.” Still with a long way to go, the Nutmeg State is one of the most progressive Green states in the country.
Verify this with its attendance and participation in the 2008 Conference of Governor's for Climate Change, hosted at Yale University on April 17 and 18. “I was very impressed with the Governor's Conference,” says Bowles, who was also in attendance and part of the talks circulating around clean and sustainable energy options. “What we're finding is the need to change the rhetoric around energy efficiency and conservation. If we change the way people think, if we tell them there are viable solutions to our energy crises, then as a state we can mobilize into action.”
Mobilizing into action is what this historic presidential campaign year has been all about. And though the responsibility for change does lie heavily on the constituency, we are all recognizing the need for strong leadership on a Federal level to ensure proper support to the state. As Bowles points out, “It is much easier to work with a cohesive Federal initiative where then the state can tailor programs within that. I think that's something we [state and local government] are all waiting for.”
The wait might soon be over. Or at least that is the rhetoric the McCain and Obama camps are propagating on the airwaves, papers, and internet.
On June 16, the McCain site posted its 30 second spot that has been released in T.V. stations across the country. The first ten seconds black and white, with a heavy techno-beat peppered with honking horns, images of smog, miles of congested traffic and parched land quickly gives way to tranquil music and colorful images of Senator McCain giving speeches, close-ups of solar panels and wind turbines and, lastly, a shot of the senator on a scenic point with the tag line: “Reform. Prosperity. Peace.” As advertised in the commercial, as well as in his remarks on energy security given June 18, the
McCain plan is simple – investment in new energy solutions will not only end our dependence on foreign energy sources, but will also spawn growth for our economy.
Hey, the type of good news we're looking for!
The Obama site is chock full of similar messages. Again, with the main focus on renewable energy options and climate change. In a speech given October 14, 2007 in Des Moines, IA, Senator Obama had this to say: “Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.” Tie that message in with his endorsement by former-Vice President Al Gore, author of an “Inconvenient Truth,” and we know Obama means business.
According to Professor Renwick Griswold of the Sociology Department at the University of Hartford, these messages with renewable energy at the core go beyond moral obligations and quite literally into the realm of survival. “Right now - and I tell my students this - we are facing a socio-cultural revolution.” Now that the attention has been commanded, he goes onto explain, “From a historical perspective, looking at the advancement of human history, there have always been and will continue to be two issues that dictate how we interact with each other and progress – the ways we garner food and the ways we harness energy. One affects the other and as one becomes more difficult to collect, that's where we find ourselves with problems.”
Boy, he can say that again. With the increase in gas prices, a simple trip to the grocery store may not be so simple. Compound that with the shock of the grocery bill at the check-out counter.
“A society's strength and position in relations to another's,” continues Griswold, “depends on how well that food and energy is gathered.”
Barrack Obama must have taken some sociology courses because he echoes Griswold in a speech given on October 8, 2007 in Portsmouth, N.H. “The question is not if a renewable energy economy will thrive in the future, it is where. And if we want that place to be the United States of America, we can not afford to wait.”
Taking steps to solve our energy crisis will, according to both candidates, lessen our carbon footprints and boost our economy – two things worth our collective whiles. Their proposed solution is a Cap-and-Trade system to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
McCain's is slightly more market-run due to a plan where companies are allowed to purchase offsets towards their required reductions. Under his plan, companies and corporations can “buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.”
Obama's plan relies on a 100 percent allowance auction. The stipulation of this plan “requires all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away for free to coal and oil companies.”
Both plans allow for the exemption of small business at the beginning stages of the Cap-and-Trade policy, with timetables set in place for these small businesses to catch up.
Environmentally speaking, this is looking good. But what about economically? In a small state like ours, facing major brain-drain, and one that has been traditionally manufacturing and agriculturally based, will the cost of such a system place a burden on our struggling economic infrastructure?
“Absolutely not,” says Lori Brown. “The argument of 'Helping the environment is bad for business and economic growth' isn't real. Especially if you look at an energy plan like Obama's, where the money reaped from the Cap-and-Trade auctions is invested back into renewable energy resources. Connecticut already is big player in fuel-cell technology and investing in these sorts of businesses will create more jobs and make the state a leader in the nation, if not globally.”
Our leadership capabilities in environmentally focussed economic growth doesn't stop with just fuel-cell technology. According to Bowles, “the possibility of deep water wind turbines installed in the Southern New England region could potentially draw in all sorts of jobs for the state – manual labor, technicians, engineers, etc... and, it's energy that is renewable and ours. Rather than spending money on importing energy, we can circulate the money here at home.”
A concept that Obama carefully details in his Clean Energy Economy plan.
In fact, from an environmental stand-point, though both candidates are strong, Brown, Bowles and Griswold seem to agree that Obama is the man for the job.
“We all have our political biases and are passionate on various issues,” states Bowles, “But I do know that 100 years of war can't be good. Not economically, diplomatically, and certainly not environmentally.”
And so, on November fourth we head to the ballot box, the fate of man's career and, more importantly, our country's future in our hands. The arena is set and the battle will have been fought. The warriors stand waiting...Thumbs up? Thumbs down? Choose carefully.
A Republic's at stake.