Proposition/Opposition Politics and the Demise of Well Crafted Policy
Politics these days has become utterly devoid of statesmanship, and so poisoned with partisan bickering that nothing good ever gets done. Instead of working together, Democrats and Republicans have taken a position of propose and oppose. When the party in power proposes something, the other party responds not with "that's a good idea, but we have the following concerns," but rather with shrill prophecies of gloom and doom. It should be noted that I've observed this phenomenon with both parties in power.
I'm going to use as an example a state issue here in Minnesota. Governor Tim Pawlenty is pushing to increase ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 20%. He says this will help wean us from fossil fuels. The opposition says it won't, and opposes it.
Now Minnesota's a corn growing state - big ag loves this idea, because it creates new markets for corn. Big oil loves this plan, as it stands, because the energy for everything from growing to distilling to delivery speaks well to their bottom line. Because of these inefficiencies, the goal of reducing dependence on fossil fuels is not likely to be met by the Pawlenty plan.
But.
If our goal is reducing dependence on fossil fuel, then efficiency doesn't matter, so long as the energy input is not from fossil sources. Use biodiesel in the farm equipment, get solar power and wind farms to provide btu's for the stills and you are now converting non-fossil energy into stuff the cars can use. This would be a great step in the right direction. Producing fuels on the surface, from fuels on the surface would set us well on the road to energy independence.
But the opposition does not propose these modifications to the Pawlenty plan, they just say we ain't goin' for it. And mostly that's political. Pawlenty has designed a plan that Democrats are likely to shoot down so he can call them obstructive. Democrats are likely to shoot it down to make him look weak. The result is that instead of crafting policy, our political system has about as much value to our society as the WWF Wrestling.
I'm going to use as an example a state issue here in Minnesota. Governor Tim Pawlenty is pushing to increase ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 20%. He says this will help wean us from fossil fuels. The opposition says it won't, and opposes it.
Now Minnesota's a corn growing state - big ag loves this idea, because it creates new markets for corn. Big oil loves this plan, as it stands, because the energy for everything from growing to distilling to delivery speaks well to their bottom line. Because of these inefficiencies, the goal of reducing dependence on fossil fuels is not likely to be met by the Pawlenty plan.
But.
If our goal is reducing dependence on fossil fuel, then efficiency doesn't matter, so long as the energy input is not from fossil sources. Use biodiesel in the farm equipment, get solar power and wind farms to provide btu's for the stills and you are now converting non-fossil energy into stuff the cars can use. This would be a great step in the right direction. Producing fuels on the surface, from fuels on the surface would set us well on the road to energy independence.
But the opposition does not propose these modifications to the Pawlenty plan, they just say we ain't goin' for it. And mostly that's political. Pawlenty has designed a plan that Democrats are likely to shoot down so he can call them obstructive. Democrats are likely to shoot it down to make him look weak. The result is that instead of crafting policy, our political system has about as much value to our society as the WWF Wrestling.