The one word you'll never hear an electable politician say . . . . . . . .

[Ron Green]

"Sustainability." That's right, Al Gore probably said it in 2000, and look what happened to him. The one who said it loudest that year was Ralph Nader. It's the kiss of death, because it threatens most of us who enjoy comfort, and all of those who scramble for more stuff.

Someone please give me a scenario by which a candidate for big office can talk about sustainability in all activities of life, government and economics, and then carry the hopes of the people on that mandate.

[helderheid]

1. Yes, look what happened to him. He won the election that was handed to

* by the SCOTUS.

[Ron Green]

2. Yep, if he had only been able to sustain the vote count . . .

[Big Kahuna]

3. I think that in the very near future

a majority of the population will realize that we're fucked, and it will be a very good time to start talking sustainability.

[MrModerate]

4. Actually, the term "sustainability" shows up in allmost all . . .

Big Federal infrastructure contracts and those let by state and local jurisdictions as well -- you have to demonstrate that your project is "sustainable" or you won't win the job.

I mention this because the effect of this requirement is that large corporations (and again, particularly those doing government work) are keenly aware of sustainability requirements, they use the term constantly and with comfort, and probably would have no problem with a politician who did so as well.

And in certain parts of the country -- f'rinstance, the Pacific Northwest -- it's an even bigger deal.

Now this is just a start -- but this trend has been going forward even under the current regime.

[Ron Green]

6. This is a good and hopeful point, but the term as used by business and

government planners regarding various programs is somewhat different from the issues of the environment, or true-cost accounting for non-renewables. "Sustainability" can even refer to the permanent war that seems to be the master plan for our New American Century.

[MrModerate]

9. True . . . and sustainability won't prevent the development . . .

of a giant infrastructure project as long as it passes the environmental review process, creates jobs (especially for medium-to-low skilled workers), and can be paid for in some way that makes sense to a government economist -- conditions that many of us don't find acceptable.

But it's better than it was 10 years ago, or a generation ago.

[Ready4Change]

5. Wait till oil deliveries start to shrink.

"Sustainability" will get a lot of attention then.

[Odin2005]

7. Tax hikes is probably a bigger Kiss of Death

[Ron Green]

8. Yep, and that's also something that's necessary, at least for those who

are not working for their living.

[Telly Savalas]

10. Here's a scenario

A charismatic candidate with a talented campaign team and ample funding tackling facing a sleazy right-wing extremist tainted by the corruption and scandals of the GOP could easily make "sustainability" a campaign theme and win. Even more so if she or he isn't being subverted by those claiming to be progressive who push the false idea that sustainability and comfort are mutually exclusive.

[Ron Green]

11. Sustainability and comfort aren't mutually exclusive . . .

as long as "comfort" is redefined, or limited to a fraction of the population of the earth. There's no way China and India can have the "comfort" enjoyed by the 50th percentile of the US, without serious damage to the planet.

[Telly Savalas]

12. "Comfort" can be adopted in a much more sustainable way

than it's currently done in North America. There's nothing crazy or radical about this idea. It's just a matter of removing the wild excesses and implementing inventive solutions to our environmental and energy issues. What's the point of being so fucking negative and pessimistic?

[Ron Green]

13. I guess the point of being so "negative and pessimistic," if that's what

you're calling me, is that I cannot imagine a politician being elected to high decision-making office who campaigns on these boring policy issues while the other guy is screaming bloody murder. The fact is that our wild excesses and lack of inventive solutions are FAR more important than the bogus "war on terror," but just try to put together the numbers of voters who will understand this, and vote accordingly, and I'll buy you dinner.