Everyone has a story to tell. The story of America has been told in history books and classrooms for centuries. Former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley has a new story and he tells his version in his book, "The New American Story." In this personal view of where America is, where it came from, and where it should be heading, Senator Bradley addresses nearly every major issue discussed in politics today. He contrasts the story he feels modern politicians tell to Americans with the story he sees as the truth. Chapter Five, Oil and the Environment, is one piece of this American pie.Senator Bradley believes that modern politicians are telling Americans that we have plenty of oil left and that alternative energy sources cannot reduce our need for oil for the long term. He believes America's addiction to oil manifests itself from the consumers who want bigger cars to the corporations who manufacture what the consumer will buy. The former senator writes that oil dependence is a major factor in geopolitical instability. He writes that Americans are told that global warming is a myth, but that it is a threat to the world and yet we continue to ignore it. He discusses Americans' water consumption habits and the shortages that he believes will result if our nation continues its unquenchable use.
While the senator presents compelling arguments for each of these issues, the unbiased reader cannot help but feel he is not allowing the traditional story its fair shake. He backs his theories with strong facts, but quickly dismisses the existence of any plausibility in the traditional theories without exploring the facts upon which they are based. This missing information leaves the reader wondering what the other side to this "new" American story is.
For example, in discussing the traditional story about global warming, Senator Bradley writes, "This story flies in the face of copious scientific evidence." He scoffs at Jules and Maxwell Boykoff for stating that 53 percent of articles about global warming, published in major newspapers between 1988 and 2002, gave roughly equal attention to the theory of human fault and the theory that natural fluctuations are the cause. He does not, however, provide reason for why the analysis is faulty.
Despite the one-sided nature of this chapter, however, Senator Bradley offers some real solutions. He wants to increase mileage standards for vehicles to help reduce oil consumption. He wants to tax gasoline to encourage the purchase and use of these newly standardized vehicles and create additional financial incentives for the use of fuel efficient vehicles. He believes that the reduction of oil subsidies will clear a path for increased research on alternative sources of energy. He believes we should make a commitment to safe and inexpensive nuclear power. Sustainability and dedication to reducing greenhouse gases are keys to protecting our environment in Senator Bradley's story.
The problem is that his final two recommended policy changes would be required before the above dreams for America have a chance of becoming American reality - appointment of government officials who are dedicated to the environment and showing other countries we are serious about stopping climate change. Given the current political landscape, the only way we will see movement on most of his ideas is through heavy lobbying and a lot of public attention to each of the matters.
Senator Bradley's story about the environment is not really all that new. It is just bravely written and necessarily important. Perhaps, if enough people learn about his version of the story, his ideas will provide the impetus for some positive change.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientific evidence IS in fact so copious and, for better or worse, sufficiently accepted by the public at large that there is no merit in hashing it over and over. There is sufficient agreement on the 'facts' and the need to try to address what will be very serious ramifications sooner than had been expected -- even in the scientific community.
WATER, for example, is going to be a very real and a very political issue vis a vis availability and free markets. Going 'Green' is going to be big big global business. We the people had better pay attention to how the pie is getting sliced up.
Closer to home - http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-05-01.asp
Carol - Senator Bradley expresses similar awe at the fact that otherwise intelligent people fail to recognize the threats of global warming and that such threats are created by humans. I think you would enjoy his book, or at least this chapter!
Missy - It's amazing how popular (and, sadly, trendy) going "green" is becoming. Until federal mandates are in place, however, I must agree with the Senator - companies just are not going to bite the finanacial bullet.
I do it in a small way, admittedly, but it's still something. I have three composters in my backyard, and every piece of recyclable kitchen scrap goes into them. I recycle paper, metal and glass, and only wish that NYC had better recycling methods. There are many ways that locals can decelerate the greenhouse gas effect. Don't drive as much or as fast, recycle, compost.
Apparently, one of the greatest generators of methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas, is landfill. There are some jurisdictions that burn their unrecyclable waste and generate power from that. Unfortunately, NYC has passed laws against incineration within the city limits. Perhaps it's time to change those laws because there are new methods of incinerating and capturing the particulates that previously escaped into the atmosphere. Not to mention the fuel spent on trucking, barging, or sending by rail, solid waste to landfills, which is how NYC rids itself of the better than 9,500 tons of solid waste generated EVERY DAY!
Another thought stems from an advertisement that I saw thrity-five or forty years ago in "The Whole Earth Catalog." Does anyone remember that wonderful publication? This ad was for a methane generator. The idea was to take an old fuel oil tank, and put a door on one end, with a pipe coming out at the top of the tank, and a small flame underneath. The principle is to collect solid waste and partly fill the tank, and heat it. To start with, one would need an external source of heat, but eventually, enough methane would be generated to sidetrack some of it to act as a heat source. The remainder of the methane could be piped off to a tank, compressed, and then used for whatever need one had: cooking, driving, hosue heating and cooling, whatever. The byproduct of burning this gas is essentially water. After the gas has been generated and stops being produced, the "machine" can be shut down and the solid remainder is compost. Solved? The movement of solid waste, generation of methane from landfills, etc.
Another thought might be to compress the solid waste and microwave it in huge collection tanks. Methane would be collected here as well. Perhaps a little more complex, but still achievable.
There are so many new technologies and so many improved older technologies out there, that with just a little effort, we could reduce dependency on foreign oil AND clean up the environment. Agitation is needed and perhaps this is could be a goal for the younger drifting generation to take up.
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear some intelligent commentary/analysis from one of Gather's "official" correspondants. I must say that I've been rather disappointed by much of what I've seen, especially from the so-called "News" people.
You write: "Senator Bradley offers some real solutions. He wants to increase mileage standards for vehicles to help reduce oil consumption. He wants to tax gasoline to encourage the purchase and use of these newly standardized vehicles and create additional financial incentives for the use of fuel efficient vehicles."
All well and good. However, it occurs to me that regardless how much better CAFE standards for new vehicles get, all these SUV's and monster trucks that are on the roads today aren't going anywhere--at least for a while. The people who have the means to be able to afford to purchase a nice new (expensive) hybrid--taking advantage of income tax credit incentives, by the way (the rich get richer)--are going to be putting those gas guzzlers on the used-car market. There are a great many folks who need personal transportation who never have been able to afford a new car, and probably never will. When you put the Senator's other proposal into effect--imposing additional taxes on gasoline (to FURTHER incentivize sales of higher mileage vehicles), guess what? Those same people who can least afford it will be the ones taking it in the shorts (the poor get poorer). This guy IS a Democrat, isn't he?
Paul G. - Thanks for the compliment. I agree with you about the new vehicle standards. Just like I could not afford a hybrid when they came out, I am certain the newer vehicles would not be in my price range. I guess in the grand sceme of things, some people believe (without knowing it?) that taking care of the environment is up to either big business, by making it affordable, or the wealthy, who can afford it if it is pricey.
Yes, he's a democrat just like the democrats [think a long time dem from Detroit just for starters] who cravenly cowered before the auto industry for decades now, with palms upward, solemnly stating that they wouldn't, god forbid, want to interfere with "consumer preference" and free markets. While our international big three were deliberating "sweeping design" using the magic of focus groups, the Japanese and other competitors took over the market.
Now they're doing it again -- just saw a news clip of the new "design team" at GM where they proudly crowed how they finally took things out of the hands of the engineers and put the designers back in the driver's seat, again. The new, cute little "looks good and efficient, prototype -- will probably be manufactured, eventually, in China, or manufactured "here" by the Chinese. [Some arrangements are better than others.]
They will have the gall to come and for our tax dollars and call it R&D! Actually, I believe Ford alread has. Don't know what came of it -- probably perking away on a quiet back burner.
Forgot to say in my hast to get into my comment -- excellent article -- and I do understand your use of the word 'trendy.' I hope it's a trend that will stick at least in the sense that consumers will demand a better product, and not settle for 'looks'.
I remember the ads where women were portrayed in their most chic business suit, walking in the door with a frying pan in their hand; i.e., bringing home the bacon and frying it up. That is far from reality for most working women with children, but we all bought into it to the detriment of 'all of us.' [Speaking of daycare, child care, education in general and the lack of a market in flex schedules and 'real' family values for both men and women -- but I digress, to make my point [an article?].
Trendy, for me, in the sense that trans globals will be only too happy to jump on the big green bandwagon. There are billions being made by international elites who trade global credits for "cleaning up" the environment. We and other richer developed nations literally "dump" our garbage and get paid credits for someone else to "take" it. The people who live with it don't have much say in the process.
As Barry pointed out, there will be hidden "green" taxes in many different forms. In California [we tend to err more on the progressive rather than the regressive side -- though King Arnold is changing some of that] you can get a nominal amount for turning in an old gas guzzling "smoker" but enough for a paycheck to paycheck poor person to buy a fuel efficient car, much less pay for mandated insurance, or smog check -- or even a license. Many many just buy junkers and ditch them when they stop running and hope they don't get caught without insurance. Mass transit? Forget it -- cars are sacred. [And, though I watch my consumption like a hawk and am grateful for our strict pollution standards, I'm in love with my car].
Yea for you on the composting and recycling. "Dumping" is a big issue where I live and not much in the way of sanctions. If we pooped in the middle of the street, we'd get hauled off to jail or to the psych ward, but corporate pooping in the environment at large is quite ok.
Senator Inohofe was rude to the point of belligerence during Gore's testimony before congress. [Boxer had to swat him down--which she did very definitely but nicely]. I'm not so sure I trust Gore either when it comes to friends in high places. I have no desire to swap big ugly auto for big ugly green, or the Apollo Alliance [google some of those names].
Not true durham, that is a lie sold to you by big oil.
If it is hapnin now ,its going to happen , and it has happened before , will happen again
No, again, we've never been through what is likely to happen if we don't change our collective behavior. Yeah, the climate was warmer millions of years ago, but what could potentially happen will be far beyond that. The scientific predictions get worse every time they put out a new one, and even then they are bending over backwards to placate those who don't want you to know the full reality of what is going to happen.
Since capitalism is the religion and political party of this country, you are correct in believing that big business and government will not jump on the trendy green bandwagon until it is financially expedient to do so.
Cape Cod could fall off the face of the earth, by the time that happens. Perhaps Long Island, with it.
It all begins with personal self-responsibility in any way that one can. There must first be INtention.
It may also be noted that paying lip service to being green is more popular than being green. I am not a big fan of carbon offsets, as nobody is going to make global warming go away while preserving their ability to crank out the CO2. How many of us truly live simply, and make sacrifices in order to reduce our gootprint rather than paying for the privilege to pollute?
My daughters and I bought "An Inconvenient Truth," and were amazed at how solid the data was regarding our current trend of global warming. It is not only scary it is downright frightening. Now the soundbites are slowly showing how the administration is "committed" to reducing greenhouse gas emissions! Why would they if global warming does not exist?!! Polar bears were placed on the endangered species list, signed by our President, but how can they be endangered if global warming does not exist?!!
As far as taxes on gasoline...
80% of my community would not be able to get to and from their jobs should there be any gas tax hikes. I had to call in "sick" to work yesterday because I did not have the gas to get me there! These taxes will impact the poorer Americans to a much greater extent that those who drive around their Escalades and other gas guzzling vehicles. Although we all pay the same flat gas tax, this tax consumes a much greater percentage of a middle class income.
Some ideas for reducing the number of gas guzzling vehicles in America...
1. Enact stricter requirements on emissions for new vehicles.
2. Provide a "sin tax" on all new purchases of larger fuel inefficient vehicles. This will place the burden on the shoulders of those who can afford a $35,000 and higher vehicles, and not the average American. It may also deter those with higher incomes from buying that brand new gas guzzler.
3. Research on alternative energy should be increased NOW! Let's get that good ole American ingenuity pumping and set the pace rather than lag behind.
4. Insist that China also look to alternative energy sources by applying pressure on their national wallet by reducing imports until they comply. China is the ramping up their coal consumption and since they are developing rapidly the could exceed the U.S./North American output of greenhouse gases in the near future. Nip it in the bud.
5. America, join the Kyoto agreement. What's up with that?
Enough spewing, I have to engage in my online classes, so I'll stop now. Get angry American, speak out and be silent no more!
I agree with you that the USA could pressure China on greenhouse gasses if we chose leadership instead of inaction. As it is now, any preaching we care to make will be greeted with a yawn and the complacent reply"greenhouse gasses? Oh really. And what are YOU doing about it, mister preacher man?"
If on the other hand we were willing to make sacrifices ourselves, we would put China between a rock and a hard place and supply strong support for the elements in China's leadership who take their environmental challenges seriously. There are ignorant elements in china's leadership ranks who feel that prosperity must be built on the dead carcass of our planet- not unlike Dick Cheney.
My answer is that Detroit sold itself into endangered species status by inventing a goofy product, selling it in a goofy way (remember those stupid commercials of SUVs scaling mountains? I ain't gonna do that in a vehicle that costs more than a car and rolls over when you sneeze on it), and staying too long at the party. A former CEO of Ford warned a stockholders meeting a couple years ago that the company was too reliant on SUV sales and that the marketplace can change suddenly.
As my irreverent daughter would say, Duh.
It's gonna hurt no matter what we do. The consequences of global warming are already happening and there is no good way to get off of our oil addiction. When it comes to energy conservation, we were warned about that way back in the seventies, but then smilin' Reagan took over and it was morning again in America. Trickle down economics was going to fix everything. The longer you ignore a problem the harder it is to fix. Yes, our stock of 20 mpg (or less) SUV's will long be on the road, no matter how many 40 mpg plus hybrids are produced. This used car fleet will be gulping gas and spewing excess carbon into the air for a long time to come. I too am working class and this will hurt my pocket book, but I see no alternative to discouraging oil comsumption and funding alternative energy research thru higher gasoline taxes.
BTW, guess who first proposed funding energy research thru a gas tax?
Thats right, Jimmy Carter! Everything old is new again!
Chris W.
Yes, we need to pressure Communist China in oh so many ways, but I don't believe that the Chinese "liberals" are going to come to our rescue. They will be shot first.