Why Can't Politics, Tech, and Environmentalists Play Nice?

If you stand back and look at the environmental issues facing the world -- they're not likely to be solved by a single group or discipline.

Let's take energy for example. There's a powerful movement to rethink how we both generate and consume energy. The environmental movement is focused on changing behaviors, and changing laws. This is a good thing -- of course. But once we've all changed our light bulbs and handed over our gas guzzlers for public transport and bicycles, it's pretty clear that the impact of even pretty radical conservation isn't going to be enough to change the fast moving impact of global climate change.
It's pretty clear that cars aren't going to go away. And in fact cheap gas burners are cropping up fast in India and China, making any sacrifice we might make in the so-called 'developed' world pretty much moot. And that doesn't even begin to touch issues like coal.

So, where are the technologists on all that? Well, for sure they're on it. Venture Capitalist John Doerr gave a very moving talk at a recent TED conference about the dangers facing the world, and clearly the Venture community and the Tech community are looking to fund and deploy new energy solutions in solar, wind, battery tech and other more esoteric solutions.

But you don't get the sense that they're all on the same team. It's hard to imagine the almost anti-business environmental movement and the pro-capitalist 'Green Tech' folks in the same room. They're are related, but not aligned. And that's frightening.

Then you add politics. The Bush administration, we've just found out, has been sitting on a Global Warming report that was authored and ready to be released in 2004. This is shocking, whatever you think about the past 8 years.
It wasn't until Al Gore put images of Polar Bears on melting ice flows in movie theaters that the public came to understand what scientists and government officials had know for far longer - that there was no 'debate' about Global Climate Change. There isn't any scientific puzzle to be solved. There isn't any question about what is happening. We're melting the planet. And it's accelerating. George Bush has children, and will presumably have grandchildren. It would seem that virtually any living creature would have some survival instinct that would kick in and supersede the need to feather their own nest with dollars from industrial donors and petro-chemical companies. So, the question remains -- does Bush honestly think that Gore and his fellow Climate Change scientists are all somehow in league with a cabal of anti-business activists? Or does his faith tell him that our irresponsible environmental behavior will somehow bring home to roost cataclysm that is part of Gods plan. It's hard to imagine just what he's thinking.

Let's presume that someone else will be in the White House come January. Will this person be enlightened enough to declare a global emergency? It seems like issues like the economy, Iran, even Iraq will pale in comparison to the 8 years we've allowed the climate crisis to go without any significant effort. To be fair, it is not as if the Clinton administration did much more - despite Gore's long standing knowledge and concerns.

It seems so clear.

Politics must lead.
Technology must innovate.
Environmentalists must create social change.

And they must work together. Across boarders. Across political divides. Across cultures.

So, why isn't this happening?

Politics appears to be unable to rally citizens to do anything unpopular or that requires personal sacrifice.

Technologists are funded by -- and motivated by profit -- which may well make many of the pieces of the solution impossible to implement.

Environmentalists seem more about opposition than innovation.

So, there's an opportunity for global leadership. There's a role for an American President to do something bold.

I've crossed my fingers. I'm holding my breath. But there's lots of reason to be pessimistic.

Politics and Tech and Activists playing nice just doesn't seem like its in the stars. I hope I'm wrong.

Comments

[ImissTheCOLDWAR]

The biggest problem we have in Washington is both side of the aisle have this "All or Nothing" mentality about everthing, not allowing for significant compromise. If we would have embraced either a committment to Nuclear Power and Domestic Drilling we Ford/Carter were running the show, the US would not been in a energy crisis. If the Push for alternative fuels would have also been embraced during the same time span, again we would be far better off. We need both more domestic supply and alternative. Unfortunately, Washington can't do that. Instead, this will be endlessly debated for decades.

Environmentally speaking, the tree huggers need to chill out. The US is an easy mark because they know they will get their way most of the time. What about China? India?Russia?....Do the tree huggers really think these nations give a crap about the environment?...Whay don't we see a Greenpeace protest in Beging?......We all know why....They will be making bootleg CD's in a slave labor camp. I trust US technololgy over any nation to use our resources over China, India, Russia that have no concern for our environment.

[kingcityguru]

You do realize that polar bears can swim, don't you?
They weren't just standing around and had the ice melt around them -- they put themselves there.
Of course, it is a good visual and the fact that there are more polar bears alive today than 20 years ago is really not the point. Maybe it is easier to survive when it is warmer than when it is colder.

[LiberalBuzz]

And another FlatEarther is heard from.

[noneIn2008]

It stopped warming 10 years ago. NASA restated their numbers and the 1930's were the warmest years, with 1934 being the warmest, not 1998. The earth is now cooling. The oceans have cooled.

[LiberalBuzz]

Once again the great uninformed unwashed masses.

1934 was warm IN THE U.S. but world wide it wasn't the warmest year. And THAT is unfortunately how the FlatEarthers try to do things. By refusing to see the larger picture.

[speakeasy]

Yeah, forget the evidence and 90% of the scientists who have studied the past, the solar system, current change, empirical evidence, direct field studies over decades, whats happening around you and just go with that one article you read because just because of your current state of denial.

Hmmm... interestingly enough Science daily, the usa today, weather.com and about one thousand other sites and papers state that 14 of the hottest years on record have been since 1990. Now, in the USA, which coincidentally, isn't the center of the universe, had some warmer temps in the 30's, but the worlds average reflects, without a doubt, that the 14 warmest years on record worldwide have been since 1990. There will be anomalies everywhere such as colder spots, hotter spots, particularily nice weather and, as we are witnessing, particularily bad weather.

Also, 1934 would be considered an anomaly because the rest of the thirties were average, it was after the post war industrial revolution that temps creeped up slowly but steadily, with a few years of average. Thats how you designate a pattern, you chart the averages and see what comes up. The scientists did this and then hit the field trying for decades to prove the theory of GW as being wrong, but the combination of all data (not cherry picked) pointed in one direction. We are having a direct affect on the worlds climate.