In recent weeks, former vice president Al Gore challenged Americans to commit to producing 100 percent of electricity from "renewable energy and clean carbon-free sources" within 10 years. And former senator John Edwards launched a Half in Ten campaign "to reduce poverty in the United States by 50 percent within 10 years." Two bold, audacious goals. Same starting dates. Same decade-long trajectory.
So, is there any chance that Messrs. Gore and Edwards might possibly join forces?
Not likely, based on what I've seen and heard to date. That their respective laudable and ambitious goals could possibly be synergistic seems beyond the grasp of these two leaders and their acolytes.
I've covered this topic — the job-creation potential of clean technology and renewable energy — repeatedly over the years (see posts in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008). While the job-growth trajectories may not have been as rapid or steep as anticipated, there's no doubting the rich potential opportunities, especially at the local level. All solar is local, to paraphrase Tip O'Neill, as is all wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, and biomass energy. That is to say, renewable energy has the potential to create jobs in every metropolis, town, and village — and every congressional district.
Why are two campaigns with identical 10-year horizons proposed by two former presidential candidates of the same age and political party (and from adjacent states) being treated as unconnected, separate efforts? Why aren't the initiatives to bolster our environmental, energy, and economic security joined at the proverbial hip? I don't have an answer; let me know if you do.
This is a problem on many fronts. First and foremost, it is a lost opportunity to connect the dots between growing markets for clean renewable energy and the need to create American jobs for the underclass sufficient to raise their standard of living above the poverty line. Beyond that, it evokes the criticism of the "environmental movement" levied in The Death of Environmentalism, the 2004 paper (Download - PDF) issued on the eve of the last presidential election. Adam Werbach, in his a speech on the topic that fall at the Commonwealth Club of California, charged that environmentalism, "an ideology focused on the inter-relationship of all things, came to be an ideology of things" such as seal pups, redwoods, clean air, Yosemite, clean water, and toxic waste. He continued his indictment of environmentalists:
Some of the things they have been taught not to think of when they think of the environment are AIDS in Africa, the tax code, highways, homeless people, asthma, good jobs and the war in Iraq. Each of those things — "environmental" or not — are stripped by American environmentalism and its sister ideology, liberalism, of their native habitat, their context, and their web of connections. They are single "issues," each requiring its own movement and experts.
Four years later, not much has changed. We're still not connecting the dots.
It's not for lack of dots. There are countless competent, influential organizations working in these arenas: Green for All and the Apollo Alliance, on creating green jobs for the underclass; the American Council on Renewable Energy, on rational, national energy policy that gives renewables their due; Gore's own Alliance for Climate Protection; Edwards' Half in Ten, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the Coalition on Human Needs, and scores of other groups working on poverty issues; and literally hundreds of other organizations. I've checked the websites of all of the above-named groups. None of them mentioned both the Gore and Edwards challenges.
Even Edwards himself doesn't seem to have connected the dots. I encountered the former senator at a reception in San Francisco a couple weeks ago, following an on-stage interview in which he had talked up his anti-poverty crusade. I asked him whether he'd considered joining forces with Gore's campaign to jointly accomplish their respective goals. He listened intently and responded, in effect, that it sounded like a good idea.
It is. Why doesn't anyone seem to get that? Sen. Obama? Sen. McCain? Isn't this year's presidential allegedly dominated by energy prices and the stumbling economy?
Anyone else? Opportunity is knocking, and the time is short.
I completely agree, Joel....what seems needed is the path to action.
What would it take, for example, to mobilize and fund "demonstration projects" that put all the pieces together in grass roots community initiatives (workforce development + technology demonstration projects like a municipal solar utility, or wind, or whatver combo is locally desirable + a public/private alliance and leadership model, + funding mechanisms, pehaps using the innovative new L3C business design.
Instead of funding the piece parts on a large scale, fund well-integrated initiatives in a focused manner to help communities move ahead....then help them learn from each other as they scale county to county, state to state.
Maybe a combination of ideas from the GI Bill, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the VC world....with a little help from forward thinking leaders.
Keen to hear where people may already be doing this - and how it's working - or who would like to try to start something....
Bill Dunnington
Posted by: Bill Dunnington | August 04, 2008 at 09:29 AM
Right on, Joel. It's so important - think of all the home energy audits that need doing, non-outsourceable jobs. Local growth. Customers save money. Environment improves. That's so crazy, it just might work!
I had hoped Gore's 2000 campaign would focus on such issues, "new thinking for a new millennium" kind of thing, but alas...
Posted by: Catherine | August 04, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I would venture a guess that the Obama campaign is keeping a laser focus on Obama solutions as part of the elections strategy and trying to avoid giving the opposition anything to latch onto that would dilute the Obama message. I bet that after the election victory (yes!) collaborations, especially obvious ones like this one, will arise.
Posted by: Michelle Smith | August 04, 2008 at 10:22 AM
It seems to me that the two programs do not necessarily have synergies, in fact, are at odds with each other in many ways. The costs of changing the nation over to Gore's energy vision will drain resources from what could be used to implement Edwards' anti-poverty vision. It's no wonder no one has made the connection as the economics of the two programs are vastly different.
Posted by: Reynold | August 04, 2008 at 02:26 PM
Joel,
I have heard Gore speak of Edwards in glowing terms...and I have heard
Edwards do the same of Gore...I know they met during the campaign...probably
on several occasions.
I have to disagree with you on a major point: Edwards does get it...In fact, one of the reasons I supported Edwards was the fact that he wove all the issues together...halting global warming and strengthening the middle class/ending
poverty/strenthening rural economies were all woven together in his energy/global warming plan, entitled: "Ending Global Warming Through a New Energy Economy":
http://jre.gigliwood.com/issues/energy/index.html
Edwards was the only Democratic candidate endorsed by a major environmental organization, Friends of the Earth Action, during the primary campaign, for his strong stands on the environment, and he got rave reviews for his platform on grist.org Edwards, much to his credit, mentioned global warming as a "crisis" during nearly every speaking engagement he had.
You can see for yourself how Edwards wove all the planks of his platform together by going toEdwards's "Plan to Build One America" on http://jre.gigliwood.com/issues/index.html
As recently as his interview on NOW with David Brancaccio, John Edwards said that we
can't put all the issues in little individual silos....they're all
connected: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/429/index.html
The idea of Edwards and Gore joining forces would be great...I'm sure they would welcome the suggestion...Implementing it with their already-tight schedules might be
a bit of a challenge right now, though...
Posted by: Kathy Callan | August 05, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Edwards joining Gore - it will never happen after Edwards adulterous Love Child revelation this week. Gore will distance himself from Edwards much like he did from Clinton after Monica. Edwards credibility is completely destroyed. By the way, Gore is a Loon who is in it for nothing more than his PROFIT.
Posted by: Jim Leemann | August 07, 2008 at 06:27 PM
Great piece! Makes the case that needs to be made succinctly. The entire structure of the progressive movement has so far demonstrated a very limited creative capacity to see that past modes of thought cannot get us to the future we desire. Vision into action is not such an easy task...especially when your vision is not so good. Keep plugging away.
I'm beginning to think we need (a movement?)something that might be called Creative Global Community Development. Pondering the global warming/energy problem, I keep coming back to the fact that solutions that will work are mostly going to be community-based. It is also clear to me that social scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, and educators are the ones with the talent and know-how to really create lasting change.
Posted by: David Biddle | August 09, 2008 at 05:56 AM
I have been put in charge of finding a solution to get our 22 unit condo off the grid. My research is getting frustrating with solar companies wanting up front fees, and companies that do not seem interested.
I live in a community that has 400 condo's and 600 homes on a 12 mile canal system that are only under electricity, with no gas available.
I have found out that our lagoon system does not have a outlet back into the lake, and I thought maybe even a water turbine system might work if I knew how to get it done?
If any person can help with my research I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Lloyd
Posted by: Lloyd | August 19, 2008 at 03:39 PM
The case for renewable energy (RE) is actually understated. Firstly, the cost/kWh for properly designed RE systems/ farms is less than fossil fuel and less than Nuclear. We could revitalize the US economy with cheap, copious, carbon free electricity. The $700B or more annual reduction in fossil fuel purchases, refining, logistics, etc., is like an annual $700B reduction in taxes, and/or additional investment in our country infrastructure, populous, healthcare,... our leaders can make. Cheap power also means desalinization, growing produce where/ when it does not now grow economically, and the economic justification to scrub toxins from our industrial processes. My company is engaged in commercializing $.05 or less/kWh RE systems. [email protected]
Posted by: Jay Rosenberg | November 08, 2008 at 06:17 PM