Satan called, he said something about Environmental Policy and a hand basket

In a desperately toned article, Joseph Romm stressed just what kind of relationships we should be having with our future leaders the candidates. “So the question we must ask the candidates is not only what they’ll do, but when they’ll do it. What, for example is each candidate’s plan for the first 180 days of the presidency…” Each candidate has been asked about their platform on the environmental issues facing us. Because the parties do not have firm and known stances on issues dealing with the environment (because they are just now becoming issues that policy makers see fit to deal with) there is a possibility that a responsible party model could be created (especially at the upcoming conventions). The book argues that the parties are too decentralized to take a single national position and enforce it, but it seems very plausible that the parties could be forced into creating a single national position that encompasses a general goal of less carbon and more efficiency through a variety of methods including solar, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, clean coal and nuclear power. For a responsible party model, distinct comprehensive programs, commitment to the programs, methods of implementation, and responsibility for the results are needed. Scientists are currently working on the comprehensive programs that can help solve our current problems. Innovations in these fields will become methods that the parties will have to commit to (if the environmental impacts get to a point where they can not be ignored) and the parties in power will have to take responsibility for programs they implement (because if they do nothing they will be held responsible for their lack of an attempt to solve the problems). Romm reiterates this idea again later: “We need to know what they'll do to act quickly. And we need to hear their unifying vision for the post-carbon world”. Once again, the idea of a unifying vision is a new concept for the parties, but with a goal already set for them to attain (stop, or more realistically significantly mitigate, global warming and our impact on the environment) it will be interesting to see how the parties respond in theoretical policy as well as in action to the environmental problems facing them.
In another article, Kristina and Jason Makansi give a speculation as to the unified positions that could be taken by each party. On the Republican (or left side as they address it) the potential policy is: “use nuclear to meet demand and manage CO2, limit coal to ‘intelligent’ coal, fund a massive development program for storage, continue to commercialize ‘renewables’ and limit liquefied natural gas to strategic imports for distributed power networks”. In a bit simpler manner, the Democrat (referred to as the right side) could utilize the following: “enhance effectiveness of micro grids and drive that process from a market/consumer perspective”. Although each side has potential problems, the main point is that each side (because of their limited options of what is possible so far in our struggle with the changing environment) would have to unify around a goal that they would have to commit to and would later be held accountable for because of the very tangible results of their actions (whether the environment and emissions improve or not)
Another question that Romm poses is the following: “Who among the candidates is willing to promise, as FDR did, that "In the event that Congress should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall accept the responsibility and I will act." Romm suggests that we should be asking these questions of the candidates’ policies in order to know who it is that we should support in the primaries/caucuses and eventually who we should support monetarily as well as in the general election. Several special interest environmental groups exist with PAC registrations that have not yet made a decision in who to support. Some however have already decided on their candidate; like the Sierra Club that has pledged and given public support already to Obama. Romm gives the following poll result: “A poll just published by The Economist shows that 72 percent of primary voters in America believe the nation is on the wrong track. Another 8 percent aren't sure. But what is the right track? What is our shared vision of a post-carbon world? What will it look like, and why should we fight for it?” If primary voters believe we’re on wrong track (and we have a Republican president and a Democratic Congress) is there going to be a shift in party power based upon a hope of change or will there be, unlike the past, less party identification, that could cause a shift, and more of a focus on the candidate’s issues due to each candidate having a different stance on eco-visionary plans?
In another broad and desperate “pay attention because something big is going to happen” manner, Romm states, “We are talking about transforming an economy, infrastructure, and resource base that has developed and sustained American society over 200 years. We're talking about rising from our couches in sufficient numbers to meet a challenge as great as any American ever has faced. It is indeed the defining moment of our generation.” One may argue that these are simply the words of an environmentalist bent on getting his way with change. On the other hand, the transformation Romm refers to bears a likeness similar to party realignment. In the past, it has taken major events like the Depression to cause such alignment. The events causing the change had been unprecedented until that time in history and the inability of a party to react to the new aspect caused change. Is this new issue of our environment a big enough issue to cause this realigning? I believe that it would take a more direct slap in the face for people to react in a similar way to the response that was seen after the Depression, but perhaps that is what’s in store for us as a nation. Time can only tell. Sorry to be cliché, but it seemed appropriate.