Reform vs. Radicalism: how deep is the problem?
     Once we see the coming collapse of the political, social, and economic order of which we’re a part, what is our duty as citizens at that point? If the causes of the collapse stem from our way of life, should we try to expose those cultural problems to public consciousness, or just remain silent out of hopelessness? Could there be a middle way? Perhaps a proposal that refers to the cultural problems while at the same time keeping them politically unconscious? How about an offering of technical reform that appeals to the existing order, helping the chances we’ll be heard in the halls of power? Of course, only history will judge whether the right path was reform or radicalism.
     History may also look back at us and ask: when did the majority of inputs to the U.S. political process conclude that our problems were indeed cultural? We certainly haven’t reached that point yet, but Richard Lance Christie’s “A Renewable Deal for the United States of America” (1) has added another tome that at least gently explores those waters. Of course, nobody’s sure our democracy is capable of undertaking a cultural revolution peacefully.

How bad is it?
     I say gently because these criticisms are sprinkled lightly throughout the 441 page document, whose title and primary thrust is indeed technical reform of our energy production. But the warnings are clearly there and provide the context and the rationale for the proposal. We need to understand them in light of what we’ll read elsewhere in the work:
     -- “Our values are formed in different ways, by our culture, faith traditions, families and communities. We have achieved a great deal of progress in building a consensus that important values are now at risk and we have to act. We grew up in a world where truth mattered, and when new ideas came...the merit of the ideas was judged against the rule of reason. … The political system doesn’t act that way anymore. As in the feudal era, wealth and power now regularly trump knowledge, facts, and reason....” p. 381
     -- “Years ago, we ecologists involved in planning continental-scale conservation recognized that we were “pissing into the wind” as long as we were competing with the industrial growth culture for the last scraps of natural capital that have not already been consumed by the beast.” p. 10
     -- “Since 1986, humanity’s consumption has overshot the Earth’s sustainable ecosystem yield. We have made up the difference by “mining” groundwater and fossil fuels.” p. 17
     -- “the primary point of the Renewable Deal is NOT simply to come up with renewable alternatives to fossil fuels so we can keep the “Great Barbeque” of our natural resources going and shop ‘til we drop. The point of the Renewable Deal is to create a human culture that is consistent with, and actively practices, earth stewardship that works over the long haul.” p. 9
     --“most of the technologies and practices described in the Renewable Deal are best scaled to local application: Small is Beautiful, as E.F. Schumacher said. It is possible and desirable to implement most of the blueprint of the Renewable Deal on the ground on a local, community-by-community basis.” p. 10
     --“the Renewable Deal is an ecological systems solution to the ecological systems crisis which confronts humanity today. If such a solution is not immediately implemented, we face collapse of current human economies and ability to sustain current human populations, and fail in our moral obligation to bequeath a liveable planet to those who come after us.” p. 18

     The choice: work with them
     So Lance Christie clearly understands the depth and moral dimension of the crisis that threatens the very existence of the United States. In answer, he chooses the path of reform over radicalism. His solution is a political platform with eleven planks supporting proposals in the areas of energy, agriculture, drug and chemical regulation, fresh water, ecological integrity, health, sustainable economics, education, tax policies, election financing, and maximizing capital productivity. He is thus putting enormous faith in democracy’s ability to complete this values revolution, which if successful, would surely upend the ruling elite and their entrenched methods of making money.
     Earlier this year, Christie submitted the Renewable Deal planks to the Environmental Caucus of the Utah Democratic Party, (2) so there’s no doubt which party he’s referring to when he writes:

     “A political party campaigning for the Renewable Deal platform would refute the idea that the party did not stand for anything, had a dearth of ideas, or has no pro-active plan to address the looming environmental, financial, and public health crises this nation and world confronts.” p. 33
       To some, placing such hope on the shoulders of the Democratic Party seems unfounded. After all, Democrats have failed to push through real reform of the financial system even after it became clear that the global crisis was caused by lack of regulation over Wall Street. Given that Barack Obama owed his election to that debacle and thus had a mandate for substantive reform, this has been a moral failing of the highest order, and one has to wonder how faith in the political process survives.
    
     Tell them what they want to hear
     Once the decision is made to try to work within the system, it’s amazing how quickly one is forced to adopt its language and values. In the case of the Renewable Deal, Christie displays an almost breathtaking abandonment of his “statement of the problem” in an attempt to give us hope that capitalism is interested in reform. As the following makes

clear, capitalism is not just interested, it’s down right salivating over the prospect of trillions in government spending to aid construction of industrial power plants on a mind boggling scale:

     “Worldwatch reports that as of 2008, rapid growth has turned the new renewable energy industries into lucrative businesses, with demand outrunning supply and profits soaring. An estimated $71 billion was invested in new renewable electric and heating capacity …. Corporate research and development investment in clean energy technology reached $9.8 billion in 2007. Leading corporations making major investments in renewable energy include Applied Materials…, BP… , General Electric…, DuPont…, Goldman Sachs…Venture capitalists typically make money by investing in technologies with small market share but high growth potential. Venture capitalists like the energy sector because of its vast size… The economics of renewable energy will improve as the scale of production grows.” p. 38

    Christie’s outreach peaks when quoting author Lisa Margonelli, cheerleading the “renewable” energy bonanza: “If we want a green alternative to black gold, we’ll need to ‘greendy’ the U.S. economy - encouraging the greedy and virtuous alike to create the best fuels.” Now hold on there Lance, weren’t we scorning “wealth and power”, “the industrial growth culture”, “overshoot”, and “shop ‘til we drop” a minute ago? What happened to “Small is Beautiful” and our “moral obligation”?

    The radical within:
     Again, if you’re trying to influence the powerful members of a delusional society, these are the kind of compromises that end up being made. But while the renewable energy plank may be exactly what our energy desperate pols want to talk about, many of the remaining planks would throw a bucket of ice water on the party. One wonders if Christie is trying to slip more than a few of these by when they’re not looking:

    Many of these have merit, but they’re sort of like trying to pull a drunk off his bar stool for a quick AA meeting. It won’t happen without somebody getting hurt.
    
    The emissions tax
    Right now Congress faces popular revolt over a cap and trade bill that might have emission allowances running about $20 per ton CO2e in 2020 (3), maybe 20 cents/gal higher gasoline prices and about $100/year in increased energy costs for households (4). By contrast, after the six year phase-in of the Renewable Deal’s $300 per ton CO2e emissions tax, gasoline would be at $5/gal (not counting peak oil), electric bills would be up 80% (5), and who knows what the price multiplier effect would be on goods and services throughout the economy. The Renewable Deal would spend the trillion-dollar per year tax revenue on renewable energy plants and the “smart” grid, and provide help with hybrid and all-electric vehicle purchases and home insulation for low-income households. (Note that most “progressive” carbon tax plans return the revenue to taxpayers in equal shares to offset its impact on those most affected by higher energy prices.)