We all know that Barack Obama is in favor of change. Less clear has been exactly what it is he wishes to change. For most of the campaign the assumption has been that Obama wants to change government. He speaks often, for example, of the need to take power away from the “special interests” (which is no doubt why he supported the ethanol mandate). But based on some of his statements, it seems his ambitions may run higher than that. Perhaps Obama wishes not merely to change government, but to change us:
Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
I might humbly suggest that getting other countries’ OK as to where we set our thermostats isn’t leadership either (except, perhaps, in a globalized version of Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin‘s use of the term).
Obama’s talk of “new technologies” and controlling thermostats put me in mind of a story from a couple of months ago, when the California legislature was considering installing devices in people’s homes that would allow the government to set people’s thermostats for them:
Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.
The law provoked some understandable outrage, and was ultimately defeated (which, if I understand California’s system of government correctly, means that in a couple of years the California Supreme Court will hold that the law is constitutionally required), but it was not without its defenders:
Ralph Cavanagh, an energy expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview that at a time of peak electricity use, “most people given a choice of two degrees of temperature setback and 14th-century living would happily embrace this capacity.”
Well, gosh, if the choice is between letting the government control thermostats, and being reduced to a 14th century standard of living, then who could object? Likewise, I’m sure that Mr. Cavanagh, if given a choice between being flayed alive and giving me $1000 would gladly give me the $1000. But I won’t expect to be receiving my check any time soon.
When Senator Obama spoke of using new technologies to combat global warming, he probably didn’t have the California proposal in mind. He was no doubt thinking of something much more sensible, like the aforementioned ethanol. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for using technology to combat global warming. But stories like the above make me skeptical of the government’s ability to pick which potential new technologies have the most promise, or which methods of adaptation are the best.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In