Obamausterity

The idea of economic stagnation as a desirable policy is still only a whisper on the fringe of the environmental movement. That isn’t a reason to ignore it. All ideas start out being thought by only a few. Sometimes – anyone over 25 can call up examples – the conventional wisdom about them moves from “Preposterous!” to “Oh, but of course” in an astonishingly short time.

So let’s not presume that prosperity will remain one of our government’s goals. Let’s especially not presume it when the man who, according to the polls, is likely to become our President-elect next Tuesday speaks thus:

There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.

I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That’s just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.

For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that’s going to be my number one priority when I get into office. . . .

The “new energy economy” may be a hazy dream, but one element is absolutely clear: It will be an economy where energy is more expensive than today, not because less costly alternatives don’t exist but because the government prefers to force factories and farms and transportation systems to forgo them. Senator Obama seems to understand that higher energy prices mean a lower standard of living. How is American agriculture “contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity”? By taking advantage of “cheap oil”, our farms grow food that even the poorest can afford in abundance. Up the price of energy, as happened during the oil price bubble earlier this year, and people will perforce eat less.

They will also drive less, dress less well, live in smaller homes with fewer comforts, have fewer choices of goods and services, and so on. Changing to a way of life “that deals with climate change” will indeed “drive our economy” – but not forward. The Wealth-Spreader doesn’t mind. His slogan in 2012 may well be, “Recession is good for you!”

Further reading: David A. Ridenour, “Limiting C02 Emissions Hurts Poor Most”

Comments

[pbh]

"How is American agriculture “contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity”?"

I recommend that you read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" for a little background on the subject.

pbh