Paul Krugman is clear and lucid in refuting the major argument of those opposing climate change legislation - that it will ruin the economy. Krugman notes that the cost her household would be minimal. Unlike in the health care debate, President Obama will need to serve as "Educator-in-Chief" early on in the climate change battle. He needs to make clear early and often, ideally through a "Fireside Chat" with the American people, that:
- Climate change is a reality, not a theory. The debate is long over.
- The longer we wait to deal with this reality, the more it will cost in terms of dealing with the effects of climate change and trying to slow the process.
- America's economic competitiveness in the 21st Century will depend, in part, on it's ability to be a leader in green technologies, especially those that reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. Tom Friedman has been right all along: Green is the new red, white and blue. The "greening" of America will be good for the economy in the long run, not costly. It will create jobs. It will help us avoid the environmental disasters that are growing as a result of climate change.
- We need a national commitment to dealing with this evolving disaster, including increased investments in renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.), conservation, and clear goals for the next decade (all hybrid or electric cars and trucks by 2020, less than 25% of electricity from coal by 2020, etc.).
Unlike with health care, where it is a legitimate argument to support a wide range of legislation simply to get the reform process started, climate change demands dramatic shifts in policies now. And the President needs to frame and shape the debate before his opponents do so - as with health care. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and other have shown that if you say a lie over and over again there are many people who will take it as gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment