James Baker, as close of an associate to the Bush family as one can be without the Bush name, argued for more attention to be paid to Global Warming and a long term strategy to mitigate its effects through transition to other energy sources.
For a short note on his comments, the number of interesting statements is quite high.
First, on the hobby horse of environmentalists needing to speak a language of those who enjoy the outdoors
?It may surprise you a little bit, but maybe it?s because I?m a hunter and a fisherman, but I think we need to a pay a little more attention to what we need to do to protect our environment,? he told the Houston Forum Club.
Part of the problem getting people to focus on the issue is that most people glaze over at the long descriptions of the dangers of global warming. Most people stop at “Earth get hotter–Bad.” Of course, increasing the average global temperature by 5 degrees over 100 years doesn’t sound significant until one realizes the true impact isn’t the increase in temperatures, but the impact of global warming on ecosystems. If you like to hunt, fish, camp, float, or hike, the issue isn’t being hotter for you, but how relatively minor changes in temperature can radically affect ecosystems over time.
For hunters and fisherman that means radical change in populations that may well reduce the number of game animals as well as the enjoyment of an area as it undergoes change from one type of ecoystem to another.
Second, is his rejection of Kyoto, while still calling for action
he current Bush administration refused to sign on to the international Kyoto Treaty to combat climate change, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy.
Baker said he agreed with the decision not to join Kyoto, calling it ?a lousy treaty? because it did not include China and India.
He correctly diagnoses the problem with Kyoto. Rejection of Kyoto wasn’t the worst thing in the world. In fact, the problem from my perspective is that rejecting Kyoto without an alternative is the worst outcome. By not offering a different framework, the Administration sent the rest of the world down a path that will be incredibly difficult to change. Once Europe and other regions are focused on targets and methods contained in Kyoto, trying to renegotiate to a more effective regulatory regime becomes nearly impossible. Europe’s efforts will now largely be directed by the path dependencies contained in Kyoto that might not be the most effective long term strategies.
But he said he supported ?a gradual and orderly transition? to new fuels.
?I think we need to go forward with some sort of gradual, resourceful search for alternative sources,? Baker said.
This third quote is interesting in that Baker isn’t arguing for a Manhattan Project like effort, but a gradual and orderly transition that will make the eventual transition occur without creating giant bottlenecks in the economy.
Part of the problem is that R & D goes into fossil fuel research and development, but more problematic to me is that much of the R & D efforts on all fuels are done in situations where the research is divorced from the market. One can then find a ‘solution’ that works, but isn’t necessarily joined with a method to adopt the technology. The most obvious example of this is the SuperCar project that both the New Republic and the Trib have covered.
Fourth, and most importantly, despite talking heads on TV that decry the science behind global warming, the people with good scientists in their employ and a direct financial stake in regulation, admit there is a problem.
?When you have energy companies like Shell and British Petroleum, both of which are perhaps represented in this room, saying there is a problem with excess carbon dioxide emission, I think we ought to listen,? Baker said.
While the sound and the fury on talk television suggests that there isn’t consensus, that really only means that idiots paid for by conservative think tanks don’t agree (though many conservatives admit the problem). Industries are looking seriously at the problem and looking for ways to adopt solutions that will get ahead of the curve of legislation that they can see is coming sooner or later.
I’m sure there are areas of the policy area that I’d disagree with Baker over, but the larger framework from where he looks at the issue is I think the most productive and can eventually lead to a longterm sustainable solutions.
The question that no one seems to fully understand is that why isn’t there movement when major fossil fuel producers see a problem, when Ford’s CEO has made the issue a part of Ford’s marketing of the new Escape Hybrid, why is there still the kind of resistance in Congress towards the issue?
Downplaying industry resistance would be a mistake, but overplaying industry resistance is just as big of a mistake. Many of the industries most affected by future regulations see the problem, are adopting solutions, yet there is still stiff resistance. The answer appears to be that the ideology of the Republican Party doesn’t allow for any movement on the issue and it’s supported by conservative think tanks that generally are far more resistant than the actual industries.
As Democrats build up their infrastructure, this is an important lesson to keep in mind. The infrastructure should be geared towards developing and promoting new ideas that fit the Party’s values, but never should those efforts go further than the Party’s values where they become roadblocks to change.