Doyle’s green dream is our nightmare
Last week, Audi ran a commercial that illuminates our present situation, highlighting the “Green Police.” Al Gore smiled broadly, thinking to himself that Utopia has finally been achieved.
Jim Doyle probably smiled, thinking that Wisconsin will soon mirror Audi’s green world with the passage of his Clean Energy Jobs Act. But Utopia will be the farthest thing from the reality of living in a world with higher gas taxes, mandated energy efficiency improvements on our homes, strict emissions standards and limits on how long you can idle in your car every hour. Instead, we will be living in a green Orwellian nightmare if Doyle gets his way.
The commercial depicts Paul Blart-like envirocops frisking a hapless shopper who choose plastic over paper, a late-night snacker caught in a helicopter spotlight for simply throwing away an orange rind, and a homeowner being dragged from his home for using incandescent light bulbs. The only way to avoid these humiliations is to conform to the green rules and regulations of the “Green Police,” or to buy Audi’s Clean Diesel vehicles.
photoshop parody as seen on the website “Freakingnews.com”.
Some may say Audi was using the absurd to guilt gullible Americans into buying their cars. However, there are real green police lurking out there — Israeli officers enforce the edicts of the Ministry of Environmental Protection; New York has a Department of Environmental Conservation with a force affectionately called the “Green Police;” and the United Kingdom employs a squad dressed in green jackets to monitor for excessive CO2 emissions. I don’t think Audi was using the absurd, the company was tapping into reality.
If Gore and Doyle get their way, the scenes in the commercial will be the tip of the iceberg. Forget the cold, icy stares for not having a canvas bag at Sendik’s, instead worry about holding onto your job when Wisconsin businesses are saddled with higher energy costs and forced conservation. According to Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Clean Energy Jobs Act could eliminate up to 43,000 jobs.
“Manufacturing jobs depend on affordable energy and affordable electricity,” said Scott Manley, WMC director of environmental policy. The WMC also feels the Wisconsin-only global warming initiative will place our state and workers at a competitive disadvantage in terms of energy costs, tax rates and regulations.
If job losses aren’t enough to cool enthusiasm for Doyle’s legislation, what about the provision that would limit your choice of electronic gadgetry? Doyle is proposing the prohibition of certain consumer electronics that use more than a specified amount of electricity in “standby mode.” If your iPod, Smart phone or Blackberry doesn’t meet Jim’s standards, there could be fines of up to $100 for each device sold or offered for sale.
With all that in store for us if Doyle’s misnamed “Clean Energy Jobs Act” is enacted, maybe Audi’s Green Police world isn’t all that bad.
It’s a commercial. It’s not real. Don’t be hysterical. Sensible investment now is the door to the future. The crazy expansion of freeway lanes when we can’t even afford to maintain what we have is the cause for real fear.
typical fear mongering of an issue without any facts or true insights.
This is such a completely irresponsible article. Fear mongering about emmissions controls? Energy efficiency standards? Environmental regulations? The scarier scenario is the big corporate approach of no regulation. Do you really want the manufacturing community, big corporations and factory owners making decisions about the environment? That hasn’t worked so well in the past. Do you recall when a main river flowing into Lake Erie caught fire? No? Well, read up. Regulations from the government pulled the Great Lakes back from death. No one likes to be told what to do. SO WHAT?! If it were up to corporate interests they’d still be dumping PCBs and dioxin into our lakes and rivers because its a lot cheaper than having to be responsible. Seriously, what is your point with this article? Are you trying to convince people that being responsible about the eco-system is not “our” problem? Unbelievable.
Hrm. How partisan is the WMC? Honest question–i’m curious. Scott Manley’s bio says he worked with a former state senator named Cathy Stepp who, from the little i’ve found on google, sounds like she was pretty batty, yelling about terrorists and illegal immigrants and all the usual boilerplate Republican stuff. Just wondering how seriously we can take statistics from an organization obviously looking out for business interests.
Also interesting that there’s no mention of the tax breaks that are resulting in nearly 300 green jobs coming to Milwaukee in the near future to build wind turbines. Like Tom says, sensible investment now.
And if this article is about a state initiative, why the heck is Al Gore’s name being thrown around like a boogeyman in it? Kinda lazy, relying on the ol’ “cartoonify the opposition” boondoggle. Yeah, i said “boondoggle.” Say it out loud. it’s a funny word.
Linda – Why should the government decide which businesses are allowed to flourish and which are not? The wind turbine manufacturer gets the tax break, but the gas engine maker doesn’t. How about letting the consumer decide what they want to purchase and use. I’m not against recycling and energy efficiency, when they are cost effective and not subsidized. I drive an efficient car because it saves me money, not because it makes me a better person in the eyes of an environmentalist. If I had a large family and needed a Ford Explorer – I’d drive it. Convenience and economy always rule.
DJ – How about the questionable science and fact tampering of the UK researchers on climate change. That’s what I think of when you say “boondoggle.”
Everyone – Watch for my opinion on how the left gets all wiggy when tax credits enacted by their side benefits a conservative. I’m sure you’ll hate that too.
Ditto Tom, though I have to say, Patti, I found your presentation entertainingly theatrical. Were you really freaked out when you wrote this, or was there at least a trace of the sideshow barker in play? And if investing in green initiatives is not the answer, do you think struggling to maintain a crumbling infrastructure of traditional manufacturing is? Because I have a feeling that just about any employee of Masterlock would run straight back to the Menomonee Valley if Ingeteam came calling.
Oh snap! You mean we actually have to DO something about our environmental problems. I thought we could just talk about them for the next 50 years.
To me, asking Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce for a quote on an environmental issue is like asking a huge insurance company for a quote on health care reform. Of course they’ll say no. Their statements are paper tigers. They look scary, but they fall over with a brush of a finger. The jobs that this bill will bring to Wisconsin are akin to the jobs Mayor Barrett has just ensured will be coming to Milwaukee. We’re about to get a big wind turbine factory. We’ll have a number of jobs on the high, mid-range, and lower levels. The very sort of manufacturing jobs that we need to help rebuild our city and build clean energy sources.
Like the rest of these wiggy liberals, I am curious to know what else we can do, like now, to mitigate the effect of environmental pollution and global climate change and invest in green job creation efforts. Are conservative strategists proposing alternate solutions that do not involve taxes, tax breaks, subsidies, or “inconveniences”, or are we just going to let the “free market” fry us all?
Ah, yes! Good point. The actions of some scientists in the UK totally justify your theatrical use of the Al Gore boogeyman in an article about state policy. Silly me–i should have anticipated that red herring. I’ll go about my business now.
See, you made this a visible right/left political issue with your reply and unoriginal Al Gore wordplay slap. It’s how your piece was written and taken by many. You set the trap intentionally with your political views then call out the left when they get all up in our face about non-existent facts, bias, and hogwash. I am neither left,nor right by the way, but a shaman of exposing hypocrisy. a flying shaman in fact, with trample and vigilance.
I choose Al Gore as a starting point because he has elected himself the high priest of environmentalism. The art was chosen by our art editor and it fit well with the story. Gore isn’t a boogeyman, he’s an opportunist politician.
As for hypocrisy, why are my views hypocritical? Just because you don’t choose to agree with them or the facts I present, that makes my a hypocrit? I don’t believe your a hypocrite for believing in shoddy science of polls and opinions of those I don’t agree with, I just believe you have a different opinions. Nothing wrong with that. By the way, I’m neither left or right either, tomjulio, I’m a card carrying old-time Milwaukee socialist – conservative fiscally and liberal on personal issues.
Well, Patti….the reason the government should get to decide what types of businesses to encourage is Public Welfare. Is it in our long term interest to use up our fossil based fuels, encumber greater debt to oil producing countries, casually pollute our air and water? No, it is not. People trying to make a buck don’t always take the long view, or the ethical view for that matter. The welfare of the public is not at the forefront of the decision making process for many corporations. Making money is their goal. Unfortunately, that’s not always in line with behaving responsibly and ethically. See “company town abuses”, “see “child labor”, see my previously made point about the flaming river. There are MILLIONS of examples. How about when companies offload toxic products onto third world markets despite their harmful effects? They get caught by the government and try to turn a profit elsewhere. It has happened with baby food, pharmaceuticals, toys, pesticides, etc., etc. It’s not just American businesses. What about Chinese companies selling lead based toys here, or sweetening consumable products with anti-freeze? Hey, its cheap and people buy it. According to your “logic” that’s the winning formula. Do you really think supply and demand should be the only guide? You said “Convenience and economy always rule”. That’s absolutely naïve, as well as dangerous and irresponsible.
Wow…
I never thought I’d read something like this on this website. Good job Patty! Thank you for being willing to ask good questions, even though you knew this would get you some flak. I happen to agree with your point of view.
Why is Wisconsin deciding that we have to do something to take care of a hoax? And even if you aren’t willing to consider it a hoax, why would doing something in Wisconsin change the overall conditions? I mean, no matter how clean we keep our part of Lake Michigan, if the other states surrounding it aren’t keeping things clean, our part is still going to be dirty. If we all lived in a little bubble, then this might make sense. We could clean up the air in our bubble and we would have clean air. But the air around us is the same as the air over Chicago, and eventually the air over China. Is enacting this legislation which will put our businesses at a permanent disadvantage really the right way to solve this “problem”?
Some of the commentors seem to think that businesses are the problem. Would it really be better if there were no businesses in Wisconsin? If businesses are the problem, should we get rid of all of them? How does that help us at all?
You really like me! (to quote the insufferably cute Sally Field)
No, Melinda…no one, not one single person, is saying all business is bad and “it would be better if there were no businesses in Wisconsin”.
There are good and bad – business owners, doctors, politicians, environmentalists, priests…etc. That’s why “let everyone do what they want” doesn’t work. There need to be regulations, laws, …things like that. Just think about that for a minute, OK?
If you’re religious, maybe you believe in the Bible and the ten commandments, which are sort of like rules or laws. God supposedly thought spelling out some rules or laws was a good idea. He didn’t say “Go forth and do whatever is cheap and easy”. Did he?
Another assumption on your part (besides your climate change denial which I’ll just overlook for now) is that we (Wisconsin residents) shouldn’t do anything to improve energy efficiency, air quality, etc., unless everyone else has to do it. I used to hear this kind of talk from my children when they were little. “Why should I have to do xyz, when the kid across the street doesn’t have to?” I gave reasons– “because its the responsible thing to do”, “because brushing your teeth prevents future problems”, “because you live here, you need to contribute to keeping the house clean by taking out the trash”, etc. They didn’t like hearing it or having to be responsible either. Being a responsible citizen is hard, its sometimes time-consuming and costly, but its worth it. I’d rather live here than in Somalia. I’m proud be an American and keep my country clean. I consider it an honor to pay taxes and contribute to maintaining our shared resources-roads, schools, air, water….That’s how civilizations get things done.
do most of you perceive TCD as far left? tch, tch. I’m always surprised how lefties embrace free speech but get bent out of shape when people speak freely…
Oh, I wouldn’t call correcting misconceptions getting “bent out of shape”. The whole point of the comments section is to post comments, right? I think speaking freely is terrific, education too, and socially responsible behavior. Personally, I don’t have a sense of the political stripe of TCD. Its a handy news source and I like the arts coverage.
Doesn’t effective environmental controls lead to better and safer products for the consumer and business, resulting in savings and brand loyalty? I mean, that way it sounds like a win/win in my mind…..Doesn’t having rail reduce congestion on roads…you don’t drive your car as much…it lasts longer…you have more money?
It seems that taxes, environmentalism, lattes, soccer moms, and what not are a red herring, masking deeper and troubling societal issues at hand. We’re broke, we’re scared, we’re hungry, we’re lost, we’re confused, we’re angry…etc…
The other point I wanted to add was that I think that good and effective environmental policy (and just policy in general) can actually spur development and innovation, therefore helping to preserve a healthy form of capitalism. Let’s not forget that Wisconsin’s state motto is ‘Forward’…
Take the canvas bag comment. My first reaction is, ‘well how much cost savings can be passed to the consumer if everyone had their own bag’….If you factor in appx .10 per bag…let’s say average .30 per person (let’s not forget they are flimsy and you need to double bag)…800 people per day…
Take paper…I bought an ebook for school…it was $15 cheaper…hey, that’s money in my pocket and I got a haircut.
The other key to healthy capitalism is the transfer of skills. There are so many valuable tangible and intuitive skills gained through manufacturing that will help the US succeed. There is always something new to discover and there is always a knee jerk reaction to fear of the unknown. So rather than saying,’let’s keep things status quo’, let’s say, ‘how do we make this work, how do we move forward’.
Uh, what?
No one is saying Patti shouldn’t be expressing her opinions. But if we disagree, isn’t that what the comments section is for? Debate? Voicing opinions? I don’t see anyone here suggesting that Patti be silenced, do you?
The idea that a disagreement represents a disdain of free speech is patently absurd.
I guess it makes more sense to enforce foreign oil and energy policies than to secure and install solar panels that don’t emit any greenhouse gases. [use sarcastic tone when reading this]
I think it’s funny that this is still an argument. Even if climate change is a “hoax”, these provisions make good sense for future manufacturing. Encouraging efficient and clean business is the governments job! Our tax money should go to a sustainable environment and economy, not short term profits for businesses that will move jobs to other countries once production costs become cheaper for countries that have sustainable environmental and economic policies. This will happen no matter if climate change is real or not.
Patti, you asked “How about letting the consumer decide what they want to purchase and use?”. While nice in theory, the problem is that consumers have no responsibility to be educated about the ramifications of what they want. Whatever your views on global warming might be, you cannot argue that gas engines don’t add pollution to the air. Why should your want for a gas engine negate my want for clean air?
We need to move away from a culture of “want” and toward a culture of considering the common good. Otherwise, the selfishness of the few (disguised as an all-American right to autonomy) will continue to eat away at our natural resources, and everyone else’s right to them, until they are gone completely.