It has been inspiring to watch how quickly the EU has restructured their energy supplies this spring. Within a few weeks of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the EU Council agreed to fully phase out Russian gas, oil, and coal as soon as possible. In the next couple of months, the EU reduced imports of Russian gas by over a 1/3 and firmed up plans to cut it out entirely. And just last week,
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by Pru Foster
I completely agree with your concern about this problem. Personally, I think the bulk of the issue in the U.S. stems from two factors. The first is money in politics. This certainly applies to both sides of the aisle, but the extent to which the Republican party is beholden to the fossil fuel industry (and several others) makes this a pretty lopsided problem. But what’s new? Corporations and the rich have dominated American politics since our inception, and particularly since industrialization. We’ve never dealt properly with that problem, and it continues to haunt us.
The other issue is America’s isolation, and relative independence when it comes to the fluctuations of, and competition for, commodities that impact the rest of the world (not to mention the relative safety being so far from other countries brings). This makes it easy for us to ignore what’s happening elsewhere as “not our problem,” while simultaneously pursuing policies or consumer desires that exacerbate the issue, for example driving huge, fuel inefficient cars.
What’s to be done? I hate to say it, but I think changing hearts and minds is ultimately a losing strategy, particularly when it comes to climate change. The problem is too big and the timeline too short for that approach to do anything meaningful quickly enough to prevent some sort of disaster. In the end, in this country, it comes down to gaining power, and holding onto it long enough to effect meaningful change. The Democrats have been woeful in this regard. Their messaging and organization is simply not good enough to keep the attention of easily distractable voters who despite all their lofty ideals still tend to vote with their pocketbooks on issues that are easier to grasp than the threat of climate change (or general environment degradation).
What may change that is some kind of disaster. Not just worse storms or hotter summers, but a real disaster like marine collapse, or warming to a point that places start to be unlivable. Then people will see it. Of course, by then, it’s too late from the perspective of people like you and me, but it’s all too common to see the traffic light put in after the fatal accident, not before. Look how the E.U. has responded to the Ukraine invasion. Without that, they'd still be sucking at the teat of Russian oil.
The only other option I see is to go full-on Greta Thunberg, and get millions to join in, and keep pounding on the issue. As we know from recent experience, that repetition of message has the ability to woo weak minds to your cause. In this case, the weak minds will support something good for the planet instead of a dogma of hate. Of course, that means pretty much dedicating your life to this issue, largely to the expense of other activities. But it’s going to take something like that, a leader like that, and a movement like that in this country to wake people up before it’s too late.
Prognosis is not good from my perspective, but I guess you never know.
Maybe you should hold on to a little bit of ranting Pru. Sometimes that is the only way your voice gets heard. Interesting and frustrating topic. Thanks as always for writing your newsletter.
I completely agree with your concern about this problem. Personally, I think the bulk of the issue in the U.S. stems from two factors. The first is money in politics. This certainly applies to both sides of the aisle, but the extent to which the Republican party is beholden to the fossil fuel industry (and several others) makes this a pretty lopsided problem. But what’s new? Corporations and the rich have dominated American politics since our inception, and particularly since industrialization. We’ve never dealt properly with that problem, and it continues to haunt us.
The other issue is America’s isolation, and relative independence when it comes to the fluctuations of, and competition for, commodities that impact the rest of the world (not to mention the relative safety being so far from other countries brings). This makes it easy for us to ignore what’s happening elsewhere as “not our problem,” while simultaneously pursuing policies or consumer desires that exacerbate the issue, for example driving huge, fuel inefficient cars.
What’s to be done? I hate to say it, but I think changing hearts and minds is ultimately a losing strategy, particularly when it comes to climate change. The problem is too big and the timeline too short for that approach to do anything meaningful quickly enough to prevent some sort of disaster. In the end, in this country, it comes down to gaining power, and holding onto it long enough to effect meaningful change. The Democrats have been woeful in this regard. Their messaging and organization is simply not good enough to keep the attention of easily distractable voters who despite all their lofty ideals still tend to vote with their pocketbooks on issues that are easier to grasp than the threat of climate change (or general environment degradation).
What may change that is some kind of disaster. Not just worse storms or hotter summers, but a real disaster like marine collapse, or warming to a point that places start to be unlivable. Then people will see it. Of course, by then, it’s too late from the perspective of people like you and me, but it’s all too common to see the traffic light put in after the fatal accident, not before. Look how the E.U. has responded to the Ukraine invasion. Without that, they'd still be sucking at the teat of Russian oil.
The only other option I see is to go full-on Greta Thunberg, and get millions to join in, and keep pounding on the issue. As we know from recent experience, that repetition of message has the ability to woo weak minds to your cause. In this case, the weak minds will support something good for the planet instead of a dogma of hate. Of course, that means pretty much dedicating your life to this issue, largely to the expense of other activities. But it’s going to take something like that, a leader like that, and a movement like that in this country to wake people up before it’s too late.
Prognosis is not good from my perspective, but I guess you never know.
Maybe you should hold on to a little bit of ranting Pru. Sometimes that is the only way your voice gets heard. Interesting and frustrating topic. Thanks as always for writing your newsletter.