Why I Was Smiling Blue & Crying Green Election Morning: Reactions To A Democratic Win And A Failed Proposition

2000 & 2004: A LEGACY OF LOSSES

My first real political awakening came in 2000 at Harry's New York Bar, a Paris pub bought in 1923 by Harry McElhonewhen. A Straw Poll, begun at Harry's, has accurately predicted the result in all but two US Presidential Elections. Harry's has become political central for Americans stranded in Paris on election night.

In 2000, the bar predicted Republican, but after a raucous night, the early reports called Gore, and my wife and I went home to bed doubting the Poll's wisdom. We awoke to total chaos.

I think I first found out that Bush had been declared the next President of the United States from a French newspaper. Desperate to find a US television station, my wife and I headed to the Centre Pompidou.

For the next week, we frequented this glorious hall of creation and human imagination. Ignoring all other exhibits we huddled around a series of small televisions reporting news from stations based around the globe, and waited our turn to listen for an update through a pair of headphones.

In the end, the Supreme Court's decision ended the contentious recount process. The following morning, the French paper, which I still have saved - read "La Cour Supreme Choisit Bush" - the Supreme Court Chooses Bush. At least the Parisians understand our political system!

Four years later, in 2004, I endured the Kerry loss while living with my Bush-supporting, conservative, brother-in-law. My wife and I lived in the basement of a house with a Bush/Cheney sign in the upstairs window. My car had a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. Early exit polls showed signs of a decisive Kerry victory but the final count did not. Another loss.

My hat is off to John Kerry and Al Gore - two men who fought valiantly, survived the scuffle with their honor and principles intact, and are still dedicating their lives to doing what they think needs to be done to improve this great country of ours. There is a lesson in their humility and recommitment in the face of defeat that speaks to a longer-term vision of national prosperity.


NOVEMBER 8, 2006, 7:30AM: AM I DREAMING?

Given my electoral history, I decided to cut myself off from all media contact for the 2006 midterm elections. No tv, radio, internet, webcast, podcast, or newspaper. Instead, I focused on my work - training young people to drive a Modern Industrial Revolution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I felt justified, as this work must be succesful over the coming century no matter who is in power.

My wife and I woke early post-election morning and watched from bed as the news stations reported the results - an enormous gain for Democrats in the House, a majority of Democratic Governors, and the Senate leaning in the Democrats' favor.

Even better, a mix of industrialists and environmentalists - focused on energy and climate solutions - had won:

* The climate neutral Governator will be around to make the California renewable energy market less flabby!
* Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the house ever is a staunch believer in the new Safe Climate Act!
* Deval Patrick, the first African American Governor of Massachusetts writes, "we are often asked to choose between economic development and environmental stewardship. From my experience in the energy industry, I am convinced that this is a false choice. In Massachusetts, I believe we can and must have both."

As a Democrat, I was excited. But my excitement only lasted for about two cups of coffee and three hours.


NOVEMBER 8, 2006, 10:30AM: THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE FUNDED

At 10:30am, I came across a story on ENS Newswire about how " California voters rejected the costliest ballot initiative campaign in state history, defeating Proposition 87 that would have taxed state oil production to fund alternative energy research to the tune of $4 billon."

I don't know enough to speak intelligently on the bill, its approach, and why it failed. What I do know is that this project would have jump-started the alternartive energy industry in the 15 th largest nation on the globe if it succeeded (and they seceded).

Regardless of its faults, it would have provided capital for a revolutionary investment in renewable human energy. Millions would have been spent to support people - driving education, industry training, research and development, entrepreneurial start-ups, and government programs.

The University of California system could have tapped into that funding to become a model of sustainability - taking a major step to support the UC Sustainability Steering Committee's recent recommendation that the UC System become " climate neutral as soon as possible. "

According to the article, "Oil companies spent close to $100 million to kill Proposition 87, saying they already pay too much in California's high corporate income tax and other taxes." Outrageous!

In some ways, I agree, this is the fault of the oil companies. They funded self-interested campaigns to preserve their market share, a market share many of us believe will come at the expense of public health and safety.

But to play devil's advocate, the people of California - California for God's sake! - voted this down. Regardless of big industry campaigns, a majority of voters disapproved of this tax. Maybe the tax was too high. Maybe the bill did not have enough bipartisan support.

Regardless, the cold, hard fact is that Californians - as a state - failed to come together again.


NOVEMBER 9, 2006 - NOVEMBER 8, 2008: THE BEST WAY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE IS TO INVENT IT

It is my strongest hope that California 's aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets - 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 - are more than a bold prediction, and that the UC system's commitment to climate neutrality "as soon as possible" proves more than a visionary recommendation.

But in order to get there, we urgently need someone to invest $4 billion in somebody or something that can build a new world by 2050 that provides 9 billion people with adequate goods and services without drastically raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And we need that investment yesterday.

It's that plain. And we just missed another damn chance to get going!

So to the folks who will be governing, legislating, and lobbying for the next two years and longer - after properly celebrating, please take a minute to reach out to the people in the country who are unhappy with election results. F ind out their objections to bills like Proposition 87 - and other bold efforts to marry industry and environmentalism to the benefit of an enormous number of Americans, and citizens around the globe.

Our generation's collective historical legacy will not be determined by whether the "pro-environment" Democrats or the "pro-business" Republicans have the reins. It will be determined by our ability as humans to work together.

Looking forward, those of us who prove that we are uniters and leaders, by making solid, bipartisan progress on energy issues over the next two years, will be rewarded in 2008 whether we are Democrats or Republicans.

2008 & BEYOND: CLIMATE COLLABORATION

I would like to close with the words of a famous, notorious author, who took the time to educate himself in detail about global warming solutions and the environmental movement for three long years before forming his conclusions.

His message still has not been heard:

Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by alliegance to a single political party.

Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences.

Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed.

Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place...

Thank you Michael Crichton, welcome Class of 2006, and good luck to us all!