Meanwhile, in energy conservation news the strangest thing is happening:
a coalition with widely divergent political philosophies and constituencies is pressing Congress for a sweeping new energy policy with a strong focus on reducing the use of fossil fuels.
The reasons for the change are as differing as the groups themselves – a loose collection of conservatives, liberals, environmentalists and evangelical Christians.
The goal is ambitious, a reduction of 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2015 and a cut of 10 million barrels per day by 2031. As current U.S. consumption is 20 million barrels a day, that’s a lofty goal – not to mention a radical one. But we find ourselves in a tenuous and dangerous situation regarding energy, and it’s best to take extreme steps while they’re still an option and not a necessity.
The whole story has a potent strange-new-world feeling. Evangelicals, liberals, environemntalists and conservatives working together on an energy policy, it sounds like the sort of thing that makes too much sense to ever actually happen. After graduating from a liberal arts college where people could correctly define ‘ecofeminism’ (go ahead and google it, ye pikers), I never thought that I’d hear again somebody say the words “it’s best to take extreme steps while they’re still an option and not a necessity.” Damn straight it is. The longer we wait on reforming our energy practices the more painful it’ll be when the adjustment is involuntary.
This passage jumped out at me:
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, said, “This is a bipartisan effort. This is just good common sense. This is where the public wants us to go. They want us to not be so dependent on foreign oil.’’
Well good lord, you live long enough and everybody will surprise you eventually. Thank you Senator Brownback, you’ve done good.