I ended up talking with a physicist friend of mine not too long ago. He's a political leftie. Actually, he's a strongly leftist type. He was one of the physicists that signed the statement back in the 80s stating that SDI wouldn't work. We often disagree. However! We both acknowledge the other as very intelligent and that the other can believe what they like w/o it offending our friendship at all. Out here in Berkeley, I really value that: its very rare even among the educated. Politics is often like a religion here. A mutually exclusive evangelical religion at that where members of differing opinions are damned, DAMNED I TELL YOU!!!
ahem.
At any rate, my friend is leaving where we work for a year - at least - to work higher up in DOE. I lament this. Big time. He'll be coming back into town periodicly, but he'll be wanting to spend it with his wife - who ha a job out here and can't just pack up - so I'll not be seeing him that often. We'll write, but our free flowing political banter sessions are going to be not so common. If not extinct.
Our topic of discussion, when we talked, was about the oil shocks in the 1970s. I was literally a mere babe, while my friend was in college. I asked him, "Why didn't the Boomer Generation, which was so politically active in the 60s, take up the call to get rid of oil in the 70s?" After all, it was rather obvious even then that oil ist nicht gut fur das klima (the environment) and the if the Boomers wanted to avoid ever getting into another fight on foreign soil, it'd be best to end our dependancy.
He said that he considered it a major failure too. He felt that it was the environmental groups that went too far left (from him that's an ouchie) and made lots of radical commentaries that proved to be really, really false. He felt those groups hijacked the discussions and made everyone else throw up their hands and walk away.
I guess that makes sense. The extremes always tend to hijack discussions in almost every other forum. Here too I can see that. However, it seems that the extremes kept this discussion hijacked even after the extremes were proven wrong.
Now lets look at the situation we're in today. Oil is through the roof. When I go to fill my gas tank, we're verging on $2.50/gallon. If it keeps climbing I can see it hitting $3/gallon. Additionally, the oil crunch is getting set to kill the economy as is. I have a string of expletives about that and it ain't purty!
And yet...there is only a few tentative steps away from oil now. The hydrogen economy is putzing forward at the rate of a snail over arguments about /what/ will be generating the hydrogen. Nuclear (fission) is stalled over the Greens and NIMBYism. Wind is taking a hit from NIMBYism too. Solar isn't - yet - economical and suffers from a nasty manufacturing byproducts. Coal, while at least local, is nastier to the environment than oil: don't even get me started on the whole 'clean coal' nonsense.
Yet the problem remains through all this bickering. What are we going to do about dependncy on foreign oil? Especially in this uncertain era? It seems to me that both sides of the aisle would like to be able to agree on this one. For a moment, let's ignore the whole economic aspect even though that digs into all the pocketbooks of all people from rich to poor.
Let's look at the problem from another aspect, one that the left likes more: the environmental. Global warming is happening, folks. Like it or not. Believe it or not. You can believe what you like, but the universe doesn't have to keep a straight face. Oil (and other fossil fuels) is one of the major contributors to this. All those cars we drive here in the States help fuel that. If we were to transition all those vehicles off oil, it'd help in a nontrivial manner. So, I could see support from the left here.
Now let's look at it from the right's PoV. Oil is one of the driving funding operaitons, directly or indirectly, for terrorism. Every time we fuel our cars, money trickles down into the hands of the whackos from the Middle East. You want to dry up that source of funding? You want to be able to give the Middle East as much attention as we give Africa? Restrict what we do to humanitarian reasons and not even have to go station troops there at all? Me too. Let's turn off their tap as we turn off ours. Bankrupt and poor generally means pretty damn harmless.
Both the left and right have idealogical rationales beyond the economic pragmaticism. So why in the world won't we just freaking do it?
I am going to assert that it will have to be pushed by those other than the Boomer generation. Their moment of cohesiveness has worn off. Now they're starting to move into the comfy zone of "Don't you dare change my life." They're starting to become a part of the problem...especially with the fact that they make up 25% of the population. I am not saying that all of them are that way. Its just that aging makes you more conservative and that is going to be a serious problem.
I'd love to be able to make a call to arms. To declare, rise up Gen X/Y! Speak out you first Millenials! Those of you that haven't ossified among the Boomers, HELP US! We can make one of the greatest leaps in securing our safety, protecting our environment, and helping our economy grow. That's three birds. This is one stone. That's pretty impressive.
However, I'm but a pipsqueek writing in a /. journal, not a pundit or policy maker. Alas, I am a mouse.
Hear me roar.