While Clinton is saying leaving it to the expert, by opening things up to citizens, Obama’s approach offers the potential to demand more than incrementalism. This is something that Joe and I tried to convey in our truthout article. I see other issues, such as health care, which I just wrote about, similarly. These things are too important to be left to the politicians.

Thanks again.

Evan

It seems to me what Obama is saying is “We must change WASHINGTON.” Glacier’s comment, if I read him right, is “WE must change Washington.”

In other words, it is not the tail of Washington legislation that will wag the dog of consumer change and rejection of bad energy (or any other) policies, but the other way ’round.

Many consumers, imo, associate “energy efficiency” with having to do with less or deprivation.

Can legislation and initiatives supporting energy efficiency be associated with prosperity instead of having to do without?

I don’t have the answer, I’m just thinking out loud and trying to construct good questions.

This project is a great idea. And, as you say, you don’t have to do it alone! So here go a few comments, which I hope you won’t mind.

For me, this article clearly puts in perspective the three candidates’ approaches to energy.

Regarding your analysis of Obama’s ad, I would like to add a few comments. It builds up beautifully and powerfully by correctly framing other candidates’ solutions as quick fixes that are going to have no long-term effect. Unfortunately, I think the climax misses a very important point when it proposes solutions that do not break with the currently-dominant approach to energy. Namely that we can just go on living the way we do just as long as we do it using a bit less energy, or with energy from different sources. I don’t believe that to be the truth. It is, from the energy/environment standpoint, a fundamentally incrementalist position.

Regardless of the way “Washington” works, a fundamental point that is missed is the need to change the way we think about energy, and this ad does not challenge that at all. Dealing with price gouging, using alternative fuels, or — my jaw dropped with this one — a *tax cut*, none of these are systemic solutions. Even fuel efficiency standards aren’t really a change in business-as-usual.

Systemic solutions would include things like, for instance, public transportation and sustainable urban planning. Things that say “to thrive, we must change the way we live, and we must do it together”. This means changes in “Washington”, of course, but also in the way we think about energy.

Again, thank you for setting this website up — it is already stirring new ideas in my mind. I’d just also like to say I admire your drive and commitment to building and strengthening a progressive movement.

Best regards,

Luis.

Thanks for dropping by. I hope you’ll lurk from time to time and offer your thoughts.

Best,

Joe