I've been working on proposals for the Democratic platform. House Democrats beat me to part of it a few days ago, so I figured I might as well share part of it with you today: environmental policy.

Even if you don't have cancer or asthma or water damage or mercury poisoning, you probably know someone who does, not to mention the fact that everybody has noticed the weather has been going crazy lately, just as the ice caps have really begun to melt. And as everyone admits, we're in the middle of a long-term surge of hurricanes for the next decade or so. I think it is an unprecedented moment for Washington to seize on public concern and acutally do something about the environment. "But how?" I hear you cry.

Let's backtrack for a minute. I think that in general, the way Americans approach government is to use sticks rather than carrots, on account of a certain distrust of the efficacy of government to help people. Punishing people is sexy and appeals to our sense of violence, but criminalizing everything just packs our jails and stops up our court system; plus, it's risky because the cost of prosecution needs to be wieghed against all sorts of factors which have nothing to do with justice being truly meted out.

This is not a partisan issue, and that's why I want to talk about what our environmental policy approach lacks. Even among liberals, the preferred method of getting businesses in line with environmental sensitivity is to fine and prosecute them into doing it. What we need is to help people run green businesses until running your business any other way is economically infeasible. We need to provide programs, ombudsmen, helplines, websites, all that stuff.

This is not to say that I am in any way suggesting we abandon prosectuion as a tool for punshing corporate polluters. I think we should raise the personal liabilities involved for corporate personnel and limit the charters of these corporations upon infractions, as well as prohibit the Federal government from doing business with any corporate criminal, environmental or otherwise.

So, here's what HouseDemocrats.gov's plan says about environmental legislation:

block|
House Democrats are proud to present a bold INNOVATION AGENDA: A COMMITMENT TO COMPETITIVENESS TO KEEP AMERICA #1 to:

Create an educated, skilled workforce in the vital areas of science, math, engineering, and information technology;

Invest in a sustained federal research and development initiative that promotes public-private partnerships;

Guarantee affordable access to broadband technology for all Americans;

Achieve energy independence in 10 years by developing emerging technologies for clean and sustainable alternatives that will strengthen national security and protect the environment; and,

Provide small businesses with the tools to encourage entrepreneurial innovation and job creation.
|block

It's not bad, but in all honesty, I have a better idea. I'm only sorry I didn't blurt it out on time. Before I tell you, I have to note that the phrase "achieve energy independence" is cute but troubling. 'Energy independence' in 10 years isn't as new an idea as they seem to make it out to be. I think we need to stop being satisfied just to use the War in Iraq as a springboard, we need to be serious about the task at hand. Not that 'energy independence' is necessarily a bad thing, but more that 'energy sustainability' would be better.

Here's what I think:

We should convert the entire Federal government to sustainable technologies from top to bottom, from the White House to the Ranger's clubhouse in Yosemite National Park. In the process, we document our findings and innovations (editing the reports for security, of course) and publish standards and manuals for these techniques, which anyone in the world can use, free of charge. Let's not pretend that we don't have an interest in limiting oil consumption outside of the United States; the pressures of India and China's growing demand are the principal factor in oil's rising price (and corresponding strategic significance).

We got the world into this oil mess, and we need to help get it out. Now, the government employs the same methods to heat, transport and feed itself as the American people. We need to wean ourselves off of the tremendous amount of oil we consume in transportation, heating, electricity, agriculture, or any other fueled activity. The government should be providing an upgrade path and strategic support for all their facilities (and consequently, for private homes and businesses).

Besides the fact that this process is a great opportunity for a top-to-bottom financial audit of the government, it provides positive benefits to people instead of just whipping them into (seldom enforced) compliance.

If you think about the major complaint about environmentalism from the kind of voters the Democrats ought to go about convincing, it's that businesses oughtn't bear the brunt of environmental restrictions. That's why a real environmental plan needs to be construed as <b>pro-business</b>. Not like Bush's policies, which leave businesses to screw up the environment less fettered than ever before. The winning environmental plan has to be one that helps businesses large and small go green, not redistribute punishment from corporations to local communities. Further incentivize things by manipulating the tax code with regard to equipment depreciation and/or deducting the cost of using sustainable technology might help, too.

What's nice about this approach is that it's easily defensible; running the government green can't be unconstitutional or anti-religious.*

The phrase to employ here is, "Leadership By Example."

—

<small>I read an article a while ago about how some Pentecostals, convinced that the end times were near, have abandones support for environmental regulation on the grounds we shouldn't bother now that Jesus is arriving any day now. I will personally bet any of these people any amount Jesus will not show up before the end of Bush's term. If you lose, I go to hell anyway, right? </small>