by Ethan Johnson
June 16, 2008
The facts are these: The Dallas Morning News is a conservative newspaper. The op-ed section features a conservative columnist. I am not a conservative. But I check out the Sunday "Points" section whenever possible, as the DaMN does a pretty good job of taking a snapshot of the political mood locally/nationally, despite the unabashed rightward slant. I will note here that I'm not one of those people who requires layers of virtual bubble wrap to isolate me from differing opinions, unlike some on the left or right who hyperventilate at the first sign of a link to the National Review Online or the Huffington Post. But I freely admit that the political right wing is too far to the right for much hope of me finding much to agree with. Which made this most recent edition so shocking: I agreed with Rod Dreher!
Dreher describes himself as a "crunchy con". I gather that this means he cares about the environment, for example, but opposes gay... anything. Rather than get into the finer points of Dreher's overarching political views, let's right right to the op-ed he wrote this past Sunday:
A comprehensive domestic energy policy should be geared toward helping regions, cities, and neighborhoods depend as little as possible on petroleum. That could mean:
+ Dramatically changing zoning restrictions to permit small retailing in residential areas, making it possible for people to walk or bike to do their shopping. Refuse to approve new housing developments until they are designed for pedestrian accessibility to retail areas.
+ Thorough regulation and tax-code changes, encouraging the development of local farming, so population centers can better afford to feed themselves. Similarly, discouraging the use of arable land for development.
+ Government investing in expanding broadband infrastructure to make high-speed Internet access more accessible and affordable. A recent study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation ranked the US 15th out of 30 industrialized countries in terms of broadband performance. Offering tax incentives to companies that use the Internet to decentralize their workforce to homes and neighborhood clusters.
Three bullet points, lots of "wow". I find it incredible that for as much redundancy North Texas has in the retail sector (seriously, there is a Walgreens or CVS on every other corner in some areas, and even the mythical presence of a Starbucks on opposing corners), from our fairly convenient home base it's not possible to bike safely to run corner errands. I can get to the nearest corner easily, which covers the ophthalmologist, the bank, and a grocery store that may ultimately close down. I can bike to one library easily, and a second if I put in the extra effort. Beyond that, sidewalks vanish for long enough stretches and my bike isn't one of those fixed gear Tour De France models. I can do side streets, sidewalks and bike paths competently enough, but main streets are a problem without sidewalks. Even then, I have to pick my errands carefully due to the crushing summer heat and the fact that everything has to fit into a small backpack without climate control. Great for library books and soccer balls, bad for anything perishable.
As for local farming, I dig the sentiment, but I also think about the money the government paid/pays out to discourage certain crops in order to regulate prices. Stop the no-grow policies/payouts for existing farms and I'll consider new ones. Plus, we're in a part of Texas where farmland reigned some 30 years ago. Now it's entirely unrecognizable. The farm country has been pushed further north, and we're not that far from the Oklahoma border. We might get more traction on the "walk/bike to stores" point than "farm locally", which is amazing considering the sheer mass of Texas.
As for the "more broadband" point, this is a good one, but wow, that's another divergent path from the usual righty conventional wisdom. Did he say he wants the government to be part of the solution, of not be the solution? Wow.
Some business areas like call centers aren't easily decentralized to homes, but I may not be aware of the solution that now makes that possible. It's not that calls can't be forwarded, but rather call centers prefer to be run as controlled environments, which means the employees can be visually monitored (I know you're here and doing your job) and background noise is consistent (other people on the phone, and not dogs barking or kids yelling). But yeah, not only would fuel expenses be cut by not having to commute to sit in a cubicle, but real estate costs would theoretically be cut on the business side as the need for the cubicles would be reduced. This also put the burden on the employee to maintain the workspace, pay property taxes on it, and so forth. But I can attest that working from home does not guarantee a reduction in fuel costs, just a reduction in one's commute to the office. Besides, too much sitting at home prompts the need to get out and drive anywhere just to have some variety. Trip-chaining is vital to make this a cost efficient and eco-friendly activity.
Bravo to Rod Dreher for not only seeing the light in terms of a comprehensive, localized energy policy that doesn't mean drilling in ANWR or other band-aid provisions, but not blindly tossing out the usual righty talking points on these issues.
I certainly don't expect Rod Dreher and I to agree on everything, but common ground on an issue as pressing as this one is a hopeful sign that we can collectively devise and implement strategies that strengthen our energy security without resorting to the usual short-term quick fixes that delay the inevitable. As he points out in his op-ed, these are solutions that yes, rely on "macro" intervention, but has an appealing "micro" aspect that we can set about to implementing whether the corporations and politicians embrace them or not. We can condition ourselves to walk more, or bike, or take public transportation, or combine trips into a single "swing route", and gasp - say "no" to things that stretch our available resources to the limit.
I could crack that agreeing with a self-described "conservative" is a sign of the Apocalypse. Actually, I'd say the inability to find actionable common ground on the looming energy crisis would be. I'll take that as a hopeful sign. <EM>
(More articles like this one may be found here.)
