Politically Wise, Potentially Foolish

Election seasons are complicated times.  Party lines divide friends and families like the Mason-Dixon Line divided a much younger nation during the Civil War.  Despite deep-rooted differences in philosophies, we are still fortunate to live in a country that embraces the concept of “one man-one vote.”  I lament the number of people who choose not to exercise these rights, whether out of ignorance, indifference, or a perceived sense of futility.  Frankly, those who opt out have no right to complain.

This time around we are seeing divisions over women’s issues, healthcare, how and where to cut taxes, the right to marry, the debt ceiling, and foreign policy.  There are also dramatically different approaches being proposed for energy.  What surprises me is the fact that these proposals are being touted as economic issues.  One camp suggests that we have enough domestic sources of fossil fuels to be energy independent.  Open the pipelines, drill the wells, and we can control our own supply and subsequently lower prices at the pumps.  The other camp wants us to think long term, investing in alternative energy—hydroelectric, wind, solar—in order to break our addiction to fossil fuels.  Proponents of this approach are too quick to concede to detractors, allowing their plan to be characterized by their opponents as “increased spending.”

What is missing from the debate is a more fundamental dialogue about the environment.  Energy is not just a real-time economic issue; it is an environmental one.  The decisions we make now will affect our children and our children’s children.  There are compelling reasons why we should bite the bullet and fund the development of clean energy sources.  We should have done it a generation ago.  Economic recession notwithstanding, I would think that investing in the environment would go hand-in-hand with pro-life doctrine.

I am disappointed that the environmental rhetoric is being drowned out by partisan rancor.  We cannot allow the economic crisis to obfuscate the importance of environmental impact embedded in the proposed solutions.  It is time to set alternative energy development plans in motion as part of a comprehensive economic recovery plan.  If we succumb to “quick and dirty” increased domestic oil production, we will commit our nation to a future of continued environmental hazards.  Furthermore, we will continue to reinforce the dominance of the automotive industry by Big Oil.

Prudent investment in a cleaner future is not optional.  We should not allow it to be categorically shot down with a pejorative cry of “government spending.”  The environment is a social good that has long fallen victim to corporate profit mongers, who have allowed production short cuts to threaten the future of the planet.  Their actions have traded environmental safeguards for executive bonuses.  This is more than an argument of self-reliance over big government.  This is a matter of whether or not we have a future.

We will continue to argue about the size of government and the role of government.  When the free market favors profit over planet it is time for a little nudge.  If existing corporate giants cannot make a profit by doing the right thing, maybe it is time to let someone else have a try.