Individualization and Energy Policy

Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim have written a book entitled Individualization(1). In it they discuss the concept of individualization, where the structure of society forces the person into being an independent individual. This is a process where the individual is disempowered because they actually lose structural supports that provide for autonomy, freedom and choice. Instead of the society empowering the individual and providing them with the structure necessary to cope with the negative effects of globalization and the growth of capital it forces each and every individual to deal with large scale structural problems by themselves and with their own resources.

Now this situation is extremely problematic, as it creates individuals who are unable to shield themselves from the global and national problems that affect thousands and millions of people and therefore should be dealt with through a structural realignment or a collective action solution. If you leave each and every individual to deal with large scale structural issues by their own accords than the richest groups in society will feel the negative effects the least and the lower and middle classes will bear the most weight.

An example of this was the solution proposed by Bill Frist in congress to deal with the rising gas price. It is a perfect example of the false logic of personal solutions as the avenue to empowerment and problem solving. This solution is not really a solution at all, it is merely a heartless gesture; a short term hand out that will in no way address the true factors fueling the rising gas prices. If the American government and the American citizen actually wanted to empower individuals and reduce our dependence on oil than there are several large scale structural solutions that would not only be beneficial for lowering gas prices and reducing pollution but it would provide the United States and its citizens with more autonomy, a higher level of self-sufficiency. The solution would be to actually have a long-term alternative and environmentally sustainable energy policy that is well funded.

Bill Frist, a Senate Republican, wanted to offer a $100 tax rebate. Senator Frist said the rebates would go to single taxpayers making less than $125,000 per year, and couples making less than $150,000(2). The rebate would target only the first half of that income group - you do the math - its probably around $440 million. Which would be about 57% of the current fiscal spending on alternative energy(3). Now the rebate might appear to be good but, in fact, this solution in no way changes the structural issues that created this problem in the first place. The United States has learned nothing from the 1970s oil crisis except that if you do not own enough oil you can attempt to appropriate it from other countries through military force. Considering the U.S. government’s budget this year for alternative energy is $771 million(4), the hundreds of millions the U.S. governemnt would be giving back would be much better spent on investing into alternative and sustainable fuel, fuel that will exist long after oil is gone, fuel that is cleaner than oil and fuel that would make communities, states, and the U.S. much more self-sufficient energy wise.

Think about it, the lower west coast and the southwest is almost always in the sun. There is no reason that a significant portion of these regions could not be powered by sunlight, making each home and neighborhood self-sufficient. But one must remember that oil corporations have a significant say in the oval office and congress and do not want to see individuals who are self-sufficient and autonomous. Oil corporations depend on our dependency on them. Self-sufficient communities and individuals, who can live off of the sun, wind or waste products is not the in these corporation’s best interest, but it is in the citizens best interest and the nation as a whole. No longer should we allow big oil to control our own lives nor our countries. An America with an energy policy built around sustainable clean energy, biomass, sun, water, and wind can be done, we just have to incentivize the government and business, through a combination of “voting” with your dollar, but also with who we put into office and the legislation we pass as citizens in a “democratic” country. The future lies in a combination of legislation and funding that promotes biomass and biofuel, increased gas mileage for all automobiles, solar power, wind power, and tidal wave power.

Some ideas(5)