Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet

There is an unlimited amount that can be said as far as advice for US President Barack Obama and what he should do, how he should do it, and when each action and plan should be launched, now that he has given his inaugural address and started the real work of government.

But rather than speak of those specific details, important as they will be, I want to outline a philosophical approach that needs to be kept in mind throughout while developing the detailed implementation plans for economic policies, for resolving of wars, for detention policies, for healthcare and education, and last, but not least, for environmental legislation and action.

Epitomizing the approach that will NOT work was the advice given, in a shocking lack of insight, to Americans after the September 11, 2001  terrorism attacks.  That advice was "Go out and shop".  There was no discussion then or later about how we should "sacrifice" to reduce dependence on foreign oil, much of it subject to the same political forces that had attacked the United States numerous times, culminating with 9/11/2001.  There was no discussion of a meaningful stance toward the Arab and Moslem worlds that had both backbone and welcoming of reconciliation as equally important components.  The initial Bush focus on education dwindled after 9/11/2001 simply to the mechanistic and uninspiring "No Child Left Behind" which as I know from personal experience has often had the effect only  of forcing teachers to focus on standardized testing at the cost of lost inspiration and creativity in teaching.

President Obama in his inaugural address reversed many of these omissions or errors.  There will be with this president, as he said, a balance between our safety and our ideals, namely avoidance of torture and endless quasi-legal detentions.  There will be openness to good will from currently hostile regimes but they will be told of their responsibilty to help their own people not just to use of rhetoric and political stances (Hamas comes to mind), and they will be expected to meet the modern ethics of nations – as will the United States.  We will not step back from multi-culturalism and enjoyment of pluralism, as these truly are strong points of the United States, but we will be weighing how our existence impacts the weaker nations and people on the planet.

The key change that has been needed for years, it seems to me, is the adding of principled action back into the mix, and the adding of long-range vision into the mix of decision making.  Only through principles and long-range thinking will we be able to justify the economic sacrifices needed to develop a green infrastructure such as expanded mass transit, efficient buildings including retrofitting of existing structures, and support for research on and manufacturing of renewable energy products.

I have previously written here about Denmark: in 1976 they raised their price for gasoline to the equivalent of $10/gallon.  Why? Because they determined that as soon as they could, they should free themselves from importing and paying for foreign sources of energy.  This was a long-term investment at the cost of short-term economic loss.  Such thinking is rare in the United States, and it puts us now in the position of the teenager (or irresponsible adult) who spends far more than he or she has, and then asks for gifts from anyone who will listen to get them out of debt, or who struggles helplessly while others pass them by.

The United States has already gone part-way down the painful path of carelessness and living only for the moment, but if we are smart we will turn around and start thinking longer term, as responsible adults do.  Fortunately, the Barack Obama inaugural address spoke to the adult in us.  It is indeed, as he quoted, "time to put away childish things".

Now, there is a puzzle of sorts.  I did not hear the environment mentioned at all in the inaugural address.  Why?  I will read between the governmental lines: Barack Obama has assembled an unheard-of amount of expertise and activism in each of his environmental nominees, including a Nobel Prize winner, Steven Chu.  For that reason, I am expecting he will take what is perceived of as strong action on the environmental front, including green jobs but going beyond that.

However, the level of action on the environment, such as setting higher standards for automobiles, removing tax breaks for oil companies and instead funding renewable energy research and development, and supporting mass transit instead of automobile traffic, all of these steps if taken to their logical conclusions will test Americans' determination to develop a future of energy independence at the cost of some current comfort and financial ease.  Obama did not want to directly introduce controversial measures before he has had time to explain the issues and solutions to the American people.  Of all the challenges Obama faces, truly grappling with the environmental crises that are rumbling on the horizon will be his most difficult public relations challenge.  Would he be able, for example, to hike the cost of gasoline to $10/gallon as it is in Europe, funding alternative types of energy?  Imagine the firestorm of public reaction to such a step, a step that would greatly reduce our output of greenhouse gases and our consumption of foreign oil, while providing funding for development of wind, wave, and solar energy.

The other and related reason I suspect environment was not mentioned is that Obama truly needs deeper understanding of the issues.  My sense, based on his campaign positions on environment, is that he senses the importance of change in our environmental and energy policies and practices, but that in the heat of campaigning and executing his Senatorial duties, he has not had the chance to fully plumb the demands of solving environmental and energy needs.  He has not spoken in depth to the experts he has nominated.  And after speaking with each of them, he will need to develop an approach to win popular support for what are likely to be initially unpopular measures.

These must be the reasons environment was not mentioned;  they are the only reasons that make sense to me when watching the high quality and level of activism of the environment and energy team he has carefully assembled.

So, the omission of environment and energy from the speech is a good sign, since it signals the president's appreciation of the complexity and gravity of the situation.  Still, I am concerned that badly-needed action may be further delayed under the relentless pressure and schedule realites of solving the economic, military, and diplomatic crises that are also on Obama's plate.

I hope that our new president will keep in mind the implications in Al Gore's appropos words: "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change."