Fall In TreeHuggers: Obama's Environmental Suggestion Box Is Full
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 11.12.08
"Suggestions" Box Outside Oval Office, by Clay Bennett, Bennett Archive.
What self respecting green blog doesn't have up a post or five listing all the tactical things that 'Obama Should Do' or 'Obama Should Undo?' "Which ones?" indeed.
The many self-referencing blog lists and op pieces on 'what Obama should do' are so similar, it's as if a mind virus has taken over the self-appointed spokespersons of all things environmental.
The cure is mass inoculation by strategy serum: strongly indicated for the young and, you know, those kind of environmentalists who were powerfully argued to be "dead" a few years ago but didn't get the message. (See "Dissecting Environmentalism: An Interview with Adam Werbach" for perspective.)
Truth is, Obama's transition staff had their own list for months and we're not likely to change it. The new Administration will reverse or replace or modify what they can, and we can't take credit.
Regulatory Demands Can Have Unintended Consequences
If tactical lists of favorite regulations to promulgate and past executive decisions to "fix" is all what our loosely formed green machine has to say, then we can fully expect those who still use "Tree Hugger" as a pejorative term to mock us with our own irrelevance.
Think About How The Environmental Demands Sound To "Swing Voters"
Only a tiny fraction of US voters have even heard of or care about the issues on these "to do" lists. Pushing the tactic of 'reversal' sounds pretty partisan to those are outside the beltway battle-front or who don't know what the items are about; and it sure doesn't seem very visionary to be pushing a interest group point of view on a mandate decided by the once "undecideds," from whom Obama will need continuing support in 2009.
Talking up arcane reversal tactics makes environment a wedge issue for Congress. Vision and Strategy are what we need to be looking for, thinking about, and playing off.
What is Strategy?
Strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning." Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed. Strategies are used to make the problem easier to understand and solve.Via:Wikipedia
I'll leave with an example of why strategy is so important.
Pushing tactics before strategy poses a serious risk.
Arguing that it is a priority for USEPA to regulate C02 as a critical pollutant is one of the tactical ideas that I've been seeing pushed heavily in the blogo-sphere and somewhat in op eds.
Unintended International Consequences
The dunderheaded-ness of pushing a Dead Environmentalism approach to move the pendulum back - see post on The Pendulum Effect for explanation - doesn't really sink in until you think about it in terms the need for a tightened Kyoto Convention, and a Congress in 2009 that must be engaged in the lead-up to the Copenhagen meeting of 'the Convention Parties'.
Most nations don't have enforceable permit limits that work like those we have in the US. How would that look to the rest of the world community if by our example we infer they need a system of laws and agencies like the US has? Talk about unilateral attitude.
State-SIde Effects of Pushing C02 Permit Limits Not So Good Either
Making regulating C02 emissions on industry permits a top, early Obama Administration priority - especially putting it in front of a cap and trade regime - will have the unintended consequence of keeping many in industry from supporting a shared climate action vision.
Tough talk on permit changes will force energy-intensive industry sectors into a defensive mode in the first days of a new Administration, and reinforce the tendency to favor "off-shoring" factory jobs, including many we'd agree are "green." (Examples:- the manufacturing of solar photovoltaic cells, wind turbine parts, and Lithium batteries are energy intensive.)
Flash forward three months.
US industry trade groups draw a line in the sand over C02 limits on renewed permits for existing factories, suing to stall implementation - in the middle of an economic crisis, while auto makers are laying off millions. Nothing gets done - the C02 permit regulation initiative drags on in court for years.
Was there a better way based on changing the sequence of initiatives? That's what strategy is all about. Strategy is not found in the suggestion box.
Looking To 2009 For Positive Change
When at last goats are being shoe'd out of the cabbage patch, everyone must help build a new corral around the commons. Leadership drives that by stating a vision that most people will identify with and become excited about supporting.
Suggestion for environmentalists: keep your eyes on strategy signals from the new Administration; and, if you really must produce favorite "to do" lists, then at least show us that there's more than one plausible future direction that your list "works" in.
Archives
This is where TreeHugger normally includes links to related topics in our archive. By choice - this one time only - I instead refer to an example of where strategic tone has been taken. For this, see Obama's Energy Policy: Listening When We Disagree at the Oil Drum.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- The Green Message Behind Michael Jackson's Death
- The Week's Best DIY Projects, June 26-July 2: A $10 Wedding Dress and Lego Security
- Yes, There is Such a Thing as an Optimistic, Green American: Be One!
- How to Build Your Own Moisture Sensor and Conserve Water Now!
- Get Behind Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor—60 Green Groups Already Have
Look I am all in-favour of pressuring Obama as President to do things for the environment but remember that government is the least efficient entity in any country, small green businesses and the likes of Google are the way to go, the president and congress would do best by not standing in the way of green progress.
@ Mark
You might be all for it, but your "necessary vowel" marks you as likely being part of the Queen's empire.
I love this piece. America now has a smart president who is working to enact environmental steps while gaining buy in from more than the majority of Americans. Treehuggers need to get smart to, and find a way to include their vision in the culture.
Supporting small green businesses is ALWAYS helpful, creating avenues to pass along information about green standards is a useful service. There are many steps that one can take to legitimize the ideas if you don't kick people out for "not beign green enough yet"
But please don't complain now that we have someone who is headed for the white house who has a GREEN ENERGY PLAN. this is huge. The implementation may not fit what those not in government would want to start out with, but it is a complete directional change, and IT'S IN OUR FAVOR.
By all means continue what you are doing to support the green movement, our next president will be listening to the best and brightest in all fields and pushing our country towards a CULTURE that respects the environment more and includes that in our policies.
So you have a choice, you can continue to be a green snob and complain about how the president is doing enough or you can work to get the people around you who might disagree to understand how supporting green issues might benefit them.
I say enough with the armchair quarterbacking, lets continue to show people how green can really work for America (I would say USA, but I think we really can partner with Canada, and eventually support Mexico around being able to create greater effectiveness in this initiative). And then as an American I hope we can be an example for the world of what works. America never used to have to FORCE our ideas on other countries, people wanted them because they worked. We need to get back to that from a national standpoint and from an individual standpoint.
Yes but... the problem with many of the major proposal on the table or in the platform is that they are either expensive (at a time the budget is strapped beyond all experience), economically dysfunctional (at a time we can't afford to further depress the economy) or unambitious, at a time we need to pull out the stops.
The Obama team is actively soliciting suggestions because they really do need some fresh ideas that are cheap, effective and won't kill the economy. They know it. So please don't discourage the flow of suggestions that team Obama wants and needs. Rather, please encourage some fresh, original thinking, in the interest of meeting the above criteria. This is a time for brainstorming. It would be great to see TreeHugger championing and debating the best fresh ideas.
Good ideas may come from outside the fold. For instance, very few traditional environmentalists, who may love the idea of an economy-killing carbon tax, would independently conceive the alternative of tax cutting their way to a greener future with a pro-growth, no-carbon tax cut. Because it would be heresy in some ways to use a favorite Republican, Neo-Con, Supply-Side policy tool. But in fact, making all green energy, green infrastructure and green vehicles 100% tax free at all levels (sales, income, interest, capital gains, dividends) is probably the most effective way to supercharge private investment in green energy way beyond what Obama could accomplish through Federal spending -- and BTW, simultaneously reduce energy costs, save the economy and the auto industry all at the same time. Because, dang it all, Milton Friedman was right when he said" If you want more of something, tax it less."
'Nuff said here, but you can read more at http://www.greenenergytaxcuts.com/2008/11/since-you-ask.html
So TreeHugger, so John, please keep the new ideas rolling, and keep 'em fresh.
Yes but... the problem with many of the major proposal on the table or in the platform is that they are either expensive (at a time the budget is strapped beyond all experience), economically dysfunctional (at a time we can't afford to further depress the economy) or unambitious, at a time we need to pull out the stops.
The Obama team is actively soliciting suggestions because they really do need some fresh ideas that are cheap, effective and won't kill the economy. They know it. So please don't discourage the flow of suggestions that team Obama wants and needs. Rather, please encourage some fresh, original thinking, in the interest of meeting the above criteria. This is a time for brainstorming. It would be great to see TreeHugger championing and debating the best fresh ideas.
Good ideas may come from outside the fold. For instance, very few traditional environmentalists, who may love the idea of an economy-killing carbon tax, would independently conceive the alternative of tax cutting their way to a greener future with a pro-growth, no-carbon tax cut. Because it would be heresy in some ways to use a favorite Republican, Neo-Con, Supply-Side policy tool. But in fact, making all green energy, green infrastructure and green vehicles 100% tax free at all levels (sales, income, interest, capital gains, dividends) is probably the most effective way to supercharge private investment in green energy way beyond what Obama could accomplish through Federal spending -- and BTW, simultaneously reduce energy costs, save the economy and the auto industry all at the same time. Because, dang it all, Milton Friedman was right when he said" If you want more of something, tax it less."
'Nuff said here, but you can read more at http://www.greenenergytaxcuts.com/2008/11/since-you-ask.html
So TreeHugger, so John, please keep the new ideas rolling, and keep 'em fresh.