This post is about climate change policy and why Tom Steyer supporters have things backwards and his prime opponent, Xavier Becerra, has things right.
Let’s begin with California’s outsized role in national *and* world politics. Our successes are emulated. But our failures can become disasters — because if WE can’t achieve something, how can less wealthy and influential polities be expected to do it?
Becerra, the candidate I favor, has gotten heat because he disagreed with a zealous prominent climate activist (who shall not be named here, at least by me) about our regulating oil and gas emissions like we do cigarette smoke. These two air pollution issues are not even remotely the same.
Eliminating cigarette smoke left us having to contend with more people living longer — a “problem” we can happily handle. The problems with eliminating all fossil fuel emissions are far greater — and failing to do so without crashing our economy would be catastrophic well beyond our state lines.
To set the stage, California is a huge polluter due to both the size of its economy and its physical characteristics, around 1000 miles long. crossed with mountains, with the bulk of its population located in coastal plains. Partly because of when it matured economically, it is highly dependent on auto travel. That’s a tough situation.
But California has also generally recognized its problems and has taken positive steps towards reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Yes, every moment we wait for full implementation of such policies aggravates climate change and thus leads directly and indirectly to more death and suffering — but that doesn’t mean that faster is necessarily better. Thinking otherwise misconstrues California’s role as an example to others.
California needs to show that it can phase out fossil fuel emissions without crashing its own economy. Using appropriate technology from around the world, it needs to show other political entities that such a transition can succeed *politically* and economically as well as technologically.
And, as if this is not enough, we need to do so not only with a psychotic narcissistic President who hates us for obstructing his route to permanent power; but also our state’s Silicon Valley tech bros, led by Peter Thiel, who want to eliminate representative democracy altogether; as well as a Supreme Court that will try to shut down whatever of our initiatives it can.
This is not the point where I argue that we will need extremely deft and experienced political leadership (though that point will come), but where I note that the stakes for our success could hardly be higher.
Defining fossil fuel emissions as “pollutants” that legally *cannot* be allowed into our environment preempts a continued gradual transition. It’s a “cold turkey” policy. But, to the extent that someone argues that I’m *wrong* about that, then the supposed comparative advantage for Steyer over Becerra dissipates, because “as fast as we can without crashing the economy IS Becerra’s position!
(When Becerra said “I need Chevron, you need Chevron”), he meant it was needed to continue to deliver fossil fuels — through the period of transition to a fully renewable energy technology — specifically to prevent economic disaster. (He prefaced his “I need Chevron” statement with “Do you all drive electric vehicles?”, to underscore the point that Chevron will continue to have a legitimate role to play over the next 10-20 of years.)
Again: the raw amount of fossil fuel pollution is FAR less important than the pollution to be avoided by our worldwide *example* of transition without economic disaster. I’m honestly not sure whether Steyer gets this; but so far he’s not acting like he does.
Eliminating all petrochemical emissions *right away*, without completing our current transition to alternative energy sources, would lead to an economic calamity which would discredit such regulation not only nationally, but worldwide — *exactly* what we don’t want to do, given that our *influence* on other entities as a global leader is FAR more important than the pollutants we would emit over the next 10-20 years.
(And if Steyer doesn’t see “cold Turkey withdrawal as the answer, he should say *how long he’d want the transition period to be* before flipping the “off” switch. I suspect that the actual difference on this issue between him and Becerra is pretty much paper-thin.)
A wise politician understands that. A zealot who cases most about personal purity — having allegedly “clean hands” — does not.
I’ve asked progressive caucus members here if they favor a *full and immediate end* to fossil fuel use in California — and I don’t think I’ve yet gotten a straight answer.
My position, and I think it’s Becerra’s, is that phasing out fossil fuels has to be done ASAP — but like other surgical procedures it has to be done *gently* to avoid the patient bleeding out.
Steyer either doesn’t understand this — which is disqualifying — or he is cynically reaping the benefit of supporting a policy that he does not actually plan to impose!
I’ll vote for Steyer over Hilton if it comes down to it. But if he does suddenly decide that Becerra’s safer and more gradual approach is the wiser option — will his progressive activist flock *still vote for him*?
This is why I find Steyer either woefully ignorant or deeply cynical on this issue. Possibly both.
Discussion of other Progressive Caucus issues coming up! Pardon my loopy and repetitive paragraphs in the above; composing on Apple “Notes” is not for the faint of heart!
Leave a Reply