The climate road not taken—in 1980 (a story with Iran in it)

January 8, 2020 at 9:23 am (By Amba) (, , , )

Few people remember that we had a real chance to go another way that long ago—and rejected it.

Jimmy Carter’s presidency is remembered for his cringeworthy soft-spoken piety and sincerity (so uncool and unmacho it was un-American), and for his engineered impotence over the Iran hostage crisis (the Reagan campaign was working behind the scenes with Iran to delay the release of the hostages till after the 1980 election—a much-mocked “conspiracy theory” that proved to be true). With the election of Ronald Reagan, America shook off its warranted malaise and soul-searching and strode into a sunny “morning” of hearty, manly, steak-eating extractive industries, Wall Street casinos siphoning wealth upward, and chest-beating denial. We’re now reaping the reckoning and denial is still the medicine of choice, though alternative energy is now far cheaper and more efficient than it was when Jimmy Carter first advocated it.

That’s right. Did you know or (if you’re old enough) remember that Jimmy Carter pushed for clean energy independence when OPEC prices soared and there were gas lines around the block? I am old enough and I did not remember. My cousin Joan Levin (my mother’s second cousin—their grandfathers were brothers) reminded me:

When we moved to DC my first job was at DOE. One of President Carter’s goals was to produce — darn, I can’t recall the numbers – I think it was like 40 quads (quadrillion kilowatts) of energy from NON-fossil sources by the year 2000.  

So this was our mission in the Solar and Conservation unit where I worked.  Our job was to encourage production of non-fossil energy sources with government grants, loans and cooperative agreements.  So this included solar, wind, water movement, and yes, even [methane biogas from cow manure].

But when Reagan was elected he famously said that Carter’s Solar and Conservation programs would make us “hot in the summer and cold in the winter” and shut them down.  And that’s when I left DOE (where I could have stayed forever because I was civll service, but doing what?) and went to work for Public Citizen Health Research Group where . . . I wrote books and articles with doctors.

This was just an aside in a spirited discussion of Joan’s lifelong avocation (she’s a lawyer) as a writer of occasional songs and lyrics that can approach Gilbert & Sullivan levels. Methane biogas was the occasion for the following, which she used as her audition to write for the 1981 Hexagon charity revue in Washington.

The scene opens with an actor in the role of Barry Commoner, a
well-known environmentalist of the day, and author of “Politics of
Energy,” explaining the possibilities for the intestinal gas of
cattle. (Sadly, methane now turns out to be a climate change
issue, but that was not an issue being discussed at that time.)

(Recitative, 4/4 time)
I used to burn the midnight oil, and lie awake each night;
Reflecting on what I could do, to set our country right!
Our President has told us that this crisis equals war,
And every citizen must act to help our country score!
So here’s a plan that I devised to keep our Nation strong,
And send those tanks of foreign oil,
Right back where they belong!
OH —–

(3/4 time)
Be a “Farter for Carter,”
Break some wind if you can!
Harness “church creepers,” one may be a sleeper,
To power the launch of our energy plan!
Eat some beans, they are tuneful!
We’ll build a new fuel source from scratch!
Be a self-starter, be a “Farter for Carter!”
Just remember: Don’t light that match!

Hexagon did hire her as a writer, though they didn’t use that piece. I was telling her how much my dad would have loved it (he was helpless to resist even bad butt humor) when she sprang this surprise on me—Carter’s clean energy advocacy. Now I dimly begin to remember. It seemed like a quixotic, utopian idea at the time, with the technology still in its early, expensive stages. There was a way, in 1980, but not a will.

In hindsight (ha ha), what a tragic missed opportunity.

Permalink 4 Comments

Who Do You Trust — Government or Business?

July 27, 2009 at 4:44 pm (By Amba) (, , , , , , , )

Been thinking a lot lately about how liberals trust government and mistrust business, while conservatives trust business and mistrust government.  It may be the single most fundamental difference between them.  Now here’s John Stossel quoting Greg Mankiw:

Perhaps a lot of the disagreement over healthcare reform, and maybe other policy issues as well, stems from the fundamental question of what kind of institutions a person trusts. Some people are naturally skeptical of profit-seeking firms; others are naturally skeptical of government. […]

I tend to distrust power unchecked by competition. This makes me particularly suspicious of federal policies that take a strong role in directing private decisions. I am much more willing to have state and local governments exercise power in a variety of ways than for the federal government to undertake similar actions. I can more easily move to another state or town than to another nation. […]

Most private organizations have some competitors, and this fact makes me more comfortable interacting with them. […]  To be sure, we need a government-run court system to enforce contracts, prevent fraud, and preserve honest competition. But it is fundamentally competition among private organizations that I trust.

This philosophical inclination most likely influences my views of the healthcare debate. The more power a centralized government authority asserts, the more worried I am that the power will be misused either purposefully or, more likely, because of some well-intentioned but mistaken social theory. I prefer reforms that set up rules of the game but end up with power over key decisions as decentralized as possible.

Mankiw cites Paul Krugman, who raised the whole “who do you trust” issue, as a member of the opposite camp:

What puzzles me is that Paul seems so ready to trust solutions that give a large role to the federal government. (In the past, for instance, he has advocated a single payer for healthcare.) I understand that trust of centralized authority is common among liberals. But here is the part that puzzles me: Over the past eight years, Paul has tried to convince his readers that Republicans are stupid and venal. History suggests that Republicans will run the government about half the time. Does he really want to turn control of healthcare half the time over to a group that he considers stupid and venal?

Stossel adds some thoughts of his own (the ABC site seems to be copy-proofed somehow, so I have to take a screenshot of the passage):


I grew up in the allegedly benevolent shadow of FDR, believing that business was greed and government was public spirit.  My attitude has changed drastically, mostly (the way my attitude usually changes) through broadening circles of friendship, which came to include small entrepreneurs, a couple of first-generation millionaires from working-class backgrounds whom I love and admire.  Also typically, though, I haven’t gone all the way.  I think of government and business as another of the vital checks and balances of American life.

An example I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is cars.  We had a visit recently (which I noted on Twitter) from a deeply and deliberately Southern character, a 61-year-old who looks (to RT myself) as if “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” had been written by John Crowe Ransom, but who is a stealth liberal and Obama voter in a conservative small Tennessee town.  He said that after the election he had heard one of his neighbors raging, “They’re going to take our cars away!”  Who knew that SUVs were in the Bill of Rights?  Which amendment is that?

There’s a paradox about business:  it is at once the most innovative force in the world and, at the same time, can be one of the most conservative and inert.  Nothing illustrates its inertia more than the fossil fuel economy, with all that it entails of manifold environmental damage (not even counting disputed global warming, just the health effects of air pollution and the ravages of, for instance, mining the Alberta tar sands) and dangerous dependence on foreign countries.  As long as there is oil and as long as its price can be kept within broad bounds, our energy habits are not going to change.  There’s too much employment, too much existing infrastructure, too much power and profit and, yes, pleasure (I love the freedom of a fast car as much as anyone, and more than many) entrenched there.  Market forces will keep on playing that hand until it is catastrophically played out, because the costs of changing are too high and the rewards too meager and speculative.  In this case, there isn’t enough necessity to mother sufficient invention, and there won’t be until it’s too late.

The conservative solution is “Drill, baby, drill!”  The way of life that cheap oil made possible is too often equated with the American way, a days-are-numbered luxury with an eternal right.  I think this is a place where government can play a legitimate role in forcing innovation by manipulating the market — creating an anticipatory artificial scarcity (through taxation and regulation) on one end and incentives for new solutions on the other end.  (Don’t tell me government should never manipulate the market until you’ve eliminated farm subsidies, please.)  It’s a delicate business because the transition can only be gradual and the regulation can’t be too draconian without strangling the economy.  But the decades of permissive mileage standards have been shameful, and have contributed to the American auto industry’s fatal complacency.  Unnecessary waste — in a sort of potlatch*-like display of boastful affluence — has too often been the American way.

Here’s how I feel about cars:  getting places fast on Ike’s highway system, with the top down and the radio blasting, has been wonderful — and quintessentially American for a particular time.  But I sometimes think about the places I’m passing, the detail I’m missing at my usual 75 miles per hour.  The convenience and pleasure the automobile has given us has exacted a high and mostly unnoticed price, from the annual fatalities (which usually equal the number of American deaths in the Vietnam war) to the creation of car-dependent bedroom communities.  If we have to drive slower, drive less, or drive shorter distances in yet-to-be-invented plug-in electrics, I won’t feel that my God-given rights have been violated; I’ll feel that a wonderful era has passed and another, differently wonderful, is beginning.  Besides, I have faith in American inventiveness.  Given the chance and the necessity, I don’t doubt that the problem of the fast electric car, too, will be solved.

(I didn’t have time to write this, and I definitely don’t have time to put links in, but will do so later.  Meanwhile, Google “Alberta tar sands.”)

UPDATE: At the link to “potlatch” I find that these traditional feasts were all about the redistribution and sometimes the destruction of wealth.  Prestige was proportionate to how much you gave away.  Here’s the ultimate irony:

Potlatching was made illegal in Canada in 1885 and the United States in the late nineteenth century, largely at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it “a worse than useless custom” that was seen as wasteful, unproductive which was not part of “civilized” values.

I guess it was thought subversive of the sacredness of private property?

Permalink 49 Comments