H-1 Freeway--now
He is asking for the entire Nation of the United States to be energy independent--oil free--within 10 years. That would certainly mean Hawaii; designated as the state with the most natural resources to accommodate that challenge--hence,
the model State.
But, we have over a million gas-powered automobiles on our streets...at least that many electric stoves in residences and; and again about that many electric water heaters, air conditioners...clothes dryers. Meanwhile,
'Petroleum provides nearly nine-tenths of all the energy consumed in Hawaii.' Something here will have to change, drastically, within a couple years, if that challenge is to be met.
Are we willing to give up our rumbling automobiles and motorcycles--trade them for e.v.s? "Whose ready to trade in their Harley for an electric motor scooter?" (Let's see a show of hands.)
Are we, legislators and lawyers included, willing to use public transport? ...travel less distance? ...Walk more? bike more? Slow down!? Turn the TV off? Stay off-line? Go accustic? Grow our own?
Is the State Legislature willing to ban the import of passenger vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines? Will the Honolulu City and County actually install a solar-powered train, in time...or at all?
If so, we better get hopping...wikiwiki, like.
Al Gore, in his speech, compares his one-decade challenge to the one-decade challenge that President John F. Kennedy presented to America in 1961, of
"landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth" within a decade. Though, the two challenges are hardly comparable.
The JFK challenge, [video] as we saw, demanded an intense level of cooperation between paid-specialists, within a single agency--NASA...in conjunction with such outfits as Lockheed, Motorola.... Only through this highly-motivated, concentration of cooperation of experts, were "we"--the United States--able to make that "...giant leap for mankind".
In his famous,
'61' Man on the Moon speech' [text], that launched that mission , the President made clear the degree of cooperation required to achieve the goal:
"This decision demands a major national commitment.... It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries.... '
...[The goal won't be met...] "...unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space."
But, all that was required of the general public in this
"adventure of space", was to pay their taxes. And all the Federal government had to do is cough-up the money.
Al Gore's challenge, in contrast, demands "...a degree of dedication, organization and discipline...."; of nearly every person in the nation--at least every 'household' or family; and a consensus of almost everyone in government. This expectation is not just 'optimistic', but runs against the very grain of our nation's fiber--which basically supports the spirit of 'everyone doing their own thing'--individualism.
Our system also supports a government that is designed to 'check and balance' its activities...often to the point of political stalemate. This is not a criticism of our government, that's just the way it is. This political system--where inertial stagnation is 'built in'--has its advantages. Though the Gore challenge allows little room for political stalemates; or stagnation.
So the Gore challenge, [were we (in Hawaii) to accept it] might be better compared to the effort this nation, particularly Hawaii, saw during World War II. In this 'War effort', every one pitched in. We were all in it together, in a singular task of survival. The entire nation--and everyone in it, including their offspring, was at stake. So everyone was actively involved...with a very-heightened sense of cooperation.
In Hawaii, today, that level of cooperation and consensus seems remote. We see, for example, that City has finally provided HI-5 recycle bins in Honolulu's public parks...meeting the demands of the public. They--the county government--are now doing their part in this public, recycling effort. But, the people--enough people--are, apparently, not doing their part; evidenced by the large volume of garbage in these recycle bins.
This shows a lack of care, a lack of interest, or simply, perhaps, a lack of education. It certainly shows a lack of cooperation (for whatever reason) on the part of the people. Can that be turned around, to meet Gore's Challenge?
Another example--on the political front--are the conflicts that arise when certain people in public office attempt to establish powerful political influence, in the name of sustainability. (Of course I am speaking of the HI 2050 sustainability task force, and it's leadership.) This political kludge has been a 'thorn in the side' to the legislature; exemplifying 'wasteful interagency rivalries' that JFK warned of...except, in the state capitol. This sort of conflict defeats the Gore challenge; in the same way it would have defeated the Moon challenge. Unfortunately, the chances of this conflict surfacing again are pretty good.
So, before the Gore challenge can be met, or even accepted, we--as an island population--will probably need to view the environmental crises--at the root of Gore's challenge--as a serious and immediate threat to our survival; and treat it with much greater urgency then we do now. One decade is not a long time to reverse, not only the technology, but the psychology that has been firmly imbibed in us for nearly a century. The task before us is as much to"UN-DO" as it is to "DO".
So 'twenty years' to meet Gore's challenge would be more reasonable--allowing one generation overlap, at least. Our generation, in the next decade, can barely be expected to accomplish any more than pose some solutions; provide some technologies; and to encourage the next generation to get it together.
But suppose we don't have 20 years. Let's suppose that the Gore time-table is based on a global-emergency as realistic as a sinking Titanic. Then, in that case, the Gore challenge would probably need to be addressed with the fervor of WAR. No less. As if...our entire existence depended on it.
v
Chill out
