This is a comment I made in resopnse to a the we campaign "Demands for the Candidates". The person I'm responding to had proposed witholding his vote if the candidates did not "sign on" to the idea of adopting Al Gore's plan for resolving the climate crisis.

Having registered with wecansolveit.org fairly recently, and having only read your most recent post from this blog, I don't want to presume I'm fully aware of your goals or strategies. However, on the face of it, it seems entirely appropriate to hope and to request that our next elected president "sign on" to the Gore plan, and work as aggressively as possible toward addressing the climate crisis. However, we live in a country, and a culture, in which the vast majority of the voting public is sadly ignorant or even apathetic to the looming environmental crisis. And consequently, we need to play our hand very carefully.

We need to educate and embrace those who are simply unaware so that they may also see the magnitude of the problem and join this cause. We need to chip away at the established corporate interests, the wasteful ways, the "culture of distraction", and the countless barriers to progress in this regard. But while I'm generally opposed to an "ends justifies the means" mentality, I'm certain that the end in this case, ie/ the successful election of Barack Obama as our next president, is so critical that we should not in any way detract from this immediate goal.

If McCain is our next president, all our work and time and energy may be for naught. And don't be fooled that this won't be a very hard fought race. The corporate interests have a huge amount of money and power at stake here. Don't be surprised by manufactured terrorist threats in the coming months. Don't be surprised by the National Threat Level escalating to orange or even red before November. Don't be surprised if the current administration increases its portrayal of Iran as a potential nuclear threat, or unilaterally initiates military action. The Republican Party has no problem working from the perspective of the ends justifying the means, and they will do anything necessary to maintain control at the administrative level.

And there isn't a third option. As much as I wanted Al Gore to run, he didn't.

So we need to look at what we can do today, and in the coming weeks and months, to ensure that Obama is elected. Once that is accomplished, we can successfully continue our campaign to resolve the climate crisis. That is the only way to move a nation of over 300 million people and a world population of over 6 billion toward a safe future. Placing demands on the candidates will only serve to polarize them. And right now, Obama needs to appeal to the broadest number of Americans possible in order to win the election. What he does in office, I have no doubt will be so much closer to what we want to achieve than anything the republicans can offer. But we need to get him there first. We've squandered too much time, and too much of the earth already. We can't afford another 4 months of republican policies, let alone another 4 or 8 years. We'll be way beyond the tipping point by then.

Politics by its nature is limiting in so many ways, but it's all we have to work with. The 2-party system, the electoral college, election fraud, special interests and corporate influence in Washington, poor voter turnout, voting on a Tuesday, and sometimes even compromise itself - it's all limiting, and ideally we could and should work towards solutions for all of it. But it's what we have today. None of this will change by November. And if we start drawing lines in the sand and making demands, we can hurt our cause in three very real ways.

First, if Obama does sign on, he may alienate a critical number of independent voters and left-leaning republicans. What's critical? Enough to lose the election. Second, if he doesn't sign on, the media may see in us another example of dissatisfaction within his own supporters at the very moment the campaign needs to be 100% behind him. Third, I believe, given the dynamics of public opinion and media coverage, if this effort to address the climate crisis begins to be perceived as a radical, no-compromise faction, we may lose credibility, and our cause may be lost - and despite our best intentions, what a tragic repercussion that would be.

So my 2 cents would be that we should listen to the candidates, define their positions as best we can, ask for clarification when needed, and as much as possible get the rest of the nation to really know the issues and how each candidate will address them. Each American needs to examine what they value in life, and what they want for the future. Then we should ALL vote accordingly. It seems so obvious to me that I'm left to conclude the vast majority of the nation just isn't paying attention or doesn't care. Building bridges and educating people will go much further toward resolving these problems, and ultimately the climate crisis than making demands.

'We' is about people coming together. We should hope for success. We can even expect it. But if we rigidly demand it, I'm afraid we will see it slip away. Compromise is a difficult but necessary part of that process when so many different people and perspectives exist. But it's the only viable option we have. We need to keep working on it.

I took some time looking at my own energy use - not comprehensive, but specifically my electricity usage. I believe cleanly generated electricity will be the energy currency of the future, which is why I'm so determined to buy an electric car. The Tesla is a dream:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
but the Tango is a very real possibility:
http://www.commutercars.com/
So...aside from putting photovoltaic panels on the roof - another goal, I wanted to know how the electricity that came in from the grid was generated.   Read More »