More Congressional failure

The collapse of bipartisanship is a regrettable reality in American politics today. While explanations abound – the internet, campaign financing, economic inequality, racism, political toadyism – and may have validity, these “macro” maladies may not be the entire story.

Behind these factors lie our own attitudes and perspectives, traits that help define our own character and outlook. Call them “micro” matters that either contribute to political divisions or can be used as points where meaningful discussion can lessen them. 

Consider the current failure of Congress to adopt significant climate legislation. Those arguing for carbon taxes, clean energy subsidies or green infrastructure, have placed their trust in science (including economics), and the knowledge and guidance it offers. Those opposing such actions fall back on their trust in the “magic of the market,” the power of unfettered capitalism to solve the very problems it creates. Science or ideology? Where is our argument grounded?

Additionally, those advocating strong climate legislation know that only a short time remains to avert future catastrophic events. Those obstructing this legislation often exhibit a “What me worry?” attitude.  The former are able to see beyond their own personal and immediate interests. The latter are, in technical language, heavily discounting future benefits (and costs avoided) relative to perceived current costs. 

Finally, how do we relate to others having different views? Call it our temperament with a scale indicating degrees of tolerance and intolerance. I’d argue that the more open or “tolerant” we are to accepting new evidence, models and policies – particularly those running counter to our own past ideas – the more likely we are to find common solutions to problems facing us. The word for this is pragmatism – see what works and do it! Alternatively, the more “intolerant” we are of others and differing views, the less likely we are to find commonality with anyone outside our comfortable but insular group.   

Greater awareness of our own “three T’s”– trust, timeframe, temperament – will not in itself guarantee consensus. Yet it does, I believe, make explicit where our differences with others may lie and opportunities for finding commonality may exist. It also may clarify the kind of individuals we wish to represent us in Washington and Madison. Where do they put their trust, how broad is their timeframe and constituency, how open and tolerant are they to opposing arguments?  

It’s often said that politics is the art of the possible. In a democracy as large and diverse as ours, this requires electing individuals to legislative bodies who appreciate the importance of meaningful dialog, fair compromise and who stand united in addressing common problems. Failing this, we should no longer expect our country to function or survive as a democracy.  

Robert Schlack
Cornucopia, Wisconsin

Green Revolution passing us by

Peter Johnson from Superior replied to my letter that was printed in The Reader.

I stand by every statement I made in the letter. What I am trying to point out is that when people have a “Starry Eyed Optimism” does no one any good. When people think, all we have to do is “such and such” and the problem will go away, is simplistic, almost “magical thinking.” In regards to my point, about the Water is Life event. No one can rationally argue that this statement is wrong. Water is necessary to life. What I was trying to say is  that, driving your car to a Save the Earth type event is counterproductive and exacerbates the problem. There should have been 500 bicycles and 12 cars in the parking lot. 

Mr. Johnson’s thinking that nonexistent “innovative technologies” will solve the problem and that renewable technologies will save our planet, again, I think is just naive optimism, kind of like thinking God will save us in the end.

The other point I was trying to make was that 70% of the home heating in our area is from natural gas and propane. These products are produced from petroleum, as is the tar on the roads we drive on. Reducing the amount of petroleum we are refining will force the prices of home heating to double and this will hurt marginal households the most. Heating with wood is twice as bad. Heating with wood pollutes our air, puts huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere AND burns up large areas of the  forest which remove large amounts of CO2 from the air! Wood heating is not a viable alternative.

When it comes to the Green Revolution providing U.S. jobs let’s look at the facts. EnergySage.com, says, of the 12 gigawatts of solar installed last year, 2.5 gigawatts, made in the USA, 20% made in the USA. Good luck finding a job in that area unless you want to be the person that cleans the snow, dirt and dust off of the installed panels every few weeks.    

When it comes to getting a job manufacturing wind turbines, according to STATISTA .com, Energy and Environment section,  only 10% of wind turbines are made in the USA. Our tax free Foreign Trade Zone on the waterfront in Duluth, imported 300,000 tons of wind turbine parts last year, and we in Minnesota received no import tax on any of it. Our inland port does allow foreign manufacturers to get their products deep into the USA to save them some of the costs of transportation.

Right now , we are paying our utility bills and the utility is using this money to purchase foreign made products. For us to enjoy any benefits from the Green Revolution we have  to insist that  our politicians buy American products, and start RIGHT NOW and building the manufacturing base needed to produce our own Green Energy products. The Revolution is going on but we are missing out.

Bryce Makela
Duluth, Minnesota

Send your thoughts – no, not those! Your other thoughts! – to info@readerduluth.com or Letters to the Editor, Reader Weekly, P.O. Box 16122, Duluth MN 55816.