The Impossible Revolution - Stolen Future, Broken Present: The Human Significance of Climate Change - page 58

free market. We can only conclude that the opposition stems from an
objection that has no legitimacy and cannot even be spoken: the belief
that no possible public good can justify an intrusion of this kind into indi-
vidual liberty, that in protecting freedom we should not take the interest
even of posterity into account. Such a belief objects to the very idea of a
greater good or a collective purpose. Ever since the “Reagan revolution,”
many Republicans have strongly resisted the notion that the government
is capable of solving any social problem, for by definition government
itself is the greatest problem of all. In consequence, since that “revolu-
tion,” these Republicans—by no means all—tend to vilify progressive
uses of government as socialist, communist, or fascist, and on occasion,
as all three. In the new version of the free-market ideology, it seems, noth-
ing can ever be more important than the market itself .
In practical terms, then, the nation's response to climate change must
now be debated on entirely different grounds, that of “energy indepen-
dence”—the goal of weaning America from dependency on “foreign
oil.” But any legislation adopted on these premises will not be enough.
Funding research into new energy technologies is essential, but this step
will not in itself make those technologies atractive to individual consum-
ers. Giving tax breaks to help people convert to renewable energy is good,
too, but it will be insufficient, since the vast majority of the public will
have litle incentive to give up cheap fossil fuel. Perhaps the only event
that will truly change individual habits is a dramatic hike in the price of
oil. In that case, the free market might do what the government cannot,
inspiring us all to use new sources of energy as soon as we can. One pos-
sible scenario is that the government will pass legislation to generate a
new round of technological innovation, and a global economic recov-
ery will push the price of oil so high that we'll all begin shifting to a new
energy economy on our own. But such developments will still leave too
many gaps: they will leave in place the hope that oil prices will decline
again, preventing businesses from making the necessary long-term invest-
ments; they will keep alive the popular bias for cheap energy, as well as an
immense transfer of funds to oil-producing nations; and they won't cover
the management of farmland or forest, create a smart grid, or help reduce
the cost of electrical cars. Moreover, they will make it very difficult for
the United States to accept a binding target for lowering emissions in