Germany’s moderately left Social Democrats (SPD) are proposing sanctions on what they deem to be wasteful American products, i.e. those that use too much energy such as cars. This comes of course as both France and Germany oppose new EU legislation that would reduce CO2 emissions from cars.
However, hypocrisy aside, the SPD’s effort sheds light on what will likely happen in many Western countries. As the issue of climate change (or rather trend) becomes more popular, parties on both sides of the political spectrum are finding they have to deal with it or increasingly risk being on the losing side of elections. While the environment is the pet issue of the Green and left wing parties, they are finding it appropriated by their opposition and thus are struggling to compete on what was previously solely their issue.
In the Unites States, as Republicans are grudgingly becoming more environmentally friendly to compete with Democrats and rising demand for green policies, the environment, consumers and the country will be better off. Politics, however, will remain interesting as both sides fight to own an issue. Who knows, maybe the Democrats will start championing the second amendment! But on a more serious note, it could be the next point on which everyone can more or less agree that doesn’t involve national security.- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « From Baku to Kars
- » The Right People, The Wrong Way?
COMMENTS / 3 COMMENTS
Michael added these pithy words on 20 Dec 07 at 1:18 amIs it hypocrisy or a conflict between partners? The articles say that Merkel is the one opposing the legislation, but the Social Democrats are the ones pushing it.
jim added these pithy words on 20 Dec 07 at 3:32 amI agree that Green politics are becoming mainstream and that parties of the Right will quickly co-opt the message. I am skeptical about whether policies will result that make life better, though.
The latest energy bill is a good example. It involves very heavy-handed top-down regulation. A simple example is that it bans incandescent lightbulbs by 2020. The govt tends to use sledgehammers like bans and mandates that lack flexibility.
In the example of home lighting, perhaps by 2020 the current limitations (in brightness, expense, disposal, and light color) of compact fluorescents and LED lighting will have been solved. But perhaps not.
Even just taxing incandescents or subsidizing CFLs, would be wiser public policy than just banning one form of lighting.
Similary, mandating CAFE standards (MPG), is a clumsy policy tool. Much more inefficient than just raising gas taxes if you want to encourage more fuel efficient cars.
Personally I reject the fundamental moral proposition of the modern environmental movement—that it is morally better to use less energy. There is nothing inherently admirable about using less energy. I don’t waste energy so that I can save the money to spend on other things. I drive a smallish car because I’m kinda cheap. Driving a Prius carries zero moral weight with me.
The environmentalists seem unwilling to consider the costs they are imposing on society. Personally I think we’re in the midst of a religious Green hysteria.
That said, politicians are sensitive to hysterias. So I do think they will move more “Green”. I fear there will be a lot of loss economic opportunity and needless suffering before this current hysteria dies down.
My hope is the market will re-route and innovate around the government, and that the inefficiency of the bureaucracy will limit the excesses of the inevitable Save the Planet legislation that is bound to pass in the next 5-10 years.
Chirol added these pithy words on 20 Dec 07 at 9:42 amJim: Totally agree with you, especially about the religious hysteria of Greens =)
