Etzioni Checks Obama's Red and Green Lists

HuffPo contributor Amitai Etzioni expresses concern about Obama’s list of strategies to stimulate the economy. “It’s now clear,” writes Etzioni, that Obama intends to push for “large direct government spending on infrastructure projects as well as through business and individual tax cuts.”

The HuffPo contributor wonders what sort of discernment is and will occur in regards to various infrastructure amendments. “You may say,” he writes, “Wait a moment, I heard Obama repeatedly stating that he will make green jobs, support green industries, and work for energy independence.”

True enough, but these welcome moves are not part of the infrastructure package, but additional measures to which we are told about 10% of the funds, or $50 billion, will be dedicated.

Good idea; however, this does not mean that we should refrain from asking to what the majority of the funds will be dedicated. News suggests at least initially much of the funds will go to red infrastructure, which may be unavoidable, but one could add green conditions.

“Public works” may indeed be needed, but let’s make those green ones, too. For instance, just granting money to states and localities will not do; strings should be attached ensuring that funds will be dedicated to green infrastructure and not to favorite projects that serve the automobile.

The list is not difficult to draw: Buses and passenger vans should be on the green list, not cars. Hence no funds for highways, roads, and bridges unless they first set aside bicycle lanes and diamond lanes for public transportation. Funds for light rails are green. The same is true for new sources of energy, domestically generated, and for fixing our antiquated electrical grid. Not so for loans to nowhere for auto makers.

The author of “The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics,” of course, is talking about doing the right thing, rather than corn state politics. And, Etzioni shies away from any specific economic indicators, which could be quite helpful given a shortage of funds and growing need as unemployment rises. Oh, whoops, did we factor in the Empire’s returning, disgruntled soldiers?

And, whether in Chicago or in Washington, it should be noted that throughout the history of our country the Politics of Infrastructure has been rife with special interest. Uncle Sam, the icon that recently resigned as representative of our national spirit, originally became famous because of the quality of products delivered to the Continental Army, not because he was the sole supplier.

Last, but certainly not least, is the little five letter word around which most observations step ever so lightly: taxes. The last eight years certainly have been an example of something other than “Limiting Leviathan”, yet there is plenty of political fodder in the condemnation of those wanting to build up some momentum. Programs cost money and a great deal of momentum already exists in terms of the portion of the federal budget that goes toward “defense”, right, Mr. Vice President, Ms. Secretary of State?

In a world heading toward 9 billion people, when there is an urgent need for new energy choices, and given that we blithely seem to be passing tipping point after tipping point, Etzioni is right to inquire about doing the right thing. I must admit that my question and follow-up questions submitted to Andy Revkin were comparatively mundane.

Revkin has been soliciting questions to put to Obama’s science team, and my question to the point person, Carol Browner, was could an assembly line*, modular, cookie cutter, template (other synonyms) approach work? Could this be a way for the new administration to achieve a fast response to an increasingly critical climate crisis?

* Note: I dislike the war analogy, yet recognize the past success when the country converted to such effort, e.g., Mass production at Ford plants went from cars to weaponry.

My follow-up question was to the entire team: “If some of the efforts undertaken during the Carter administration had continued after his term, then we now would be in a better position to respond to the climate crisis. Is any thought be given to four years or eight years hence?”

If I had been Amitai Etzioni or Chief Joseph, I might have asked how they were considering seven generations. Nice catch phrase, isn’t it. I wonder if it should be updated to the half-life of plutonium? Certainly, the A-Team that Obama has chosen would understand such scope.

Barack Obama is following through upon his pledge to boost the role of science in policymaking. It is a good thing. Unfortunately, policy analysts usually work for policy makers.

Al Gore posted to his journal that Barack Obama has selected an exceptional team to lead the fight against the climate crisis.

While this is an amazing group of public servants, we must recognize that there is still a very difficult challenge awaiting us before we can pass new laws that truly solve the climate crisis. Public support for doing the right thing is more crucial now than it ever has been.

And, so I pose my query with consideration for those strutting about the stage rather than only to those capable of a factorial analysis that would include 5Es (Engineering, Encouragement, Evaluation and Planning, Education, Enforcement) and 3Es (Ecology, Economy, Equity). My question, rhetorically to Steven Chu, John P. Holdren, and Jane Lubchenco: What already has been embedded by those committed to environmental devastation?

And, the other question, which is much easier to ask than it is to answer: What can be embedded? I ask those, who still can be life affirming (and by that I mean life on the planet as we know it): What in the fabric of our culture will serve well in times of implosion? Within those words, “by the people, for the people and of the people,” what spark of hope remains?

Continue reading here: A123Systems Has a New Prismatic Cell

Was this article helpful?

0 0