Moving beyond ballot initiatives

Voters last week in Alaska, Colorado and Washington all decisively rejected expensive environmental ballot measures funded by many of the same large donors. Clearly, voters here in Alaska and in these other states are interested in real conversations and solutions, rather than bumper-sticker ballot propositions.

Outside support for the ballot measures came from wealthy tech-venture capitalists and high-end outdoor recreation interests. I believe these major funders share the same honest desire for strong global environmental stewardship as those of us who opposed these measures. Unfortunately, they are part of a growing societal disconnect in where the raw materials for our stuff can and should come from. What is missing is a real conversation about common objectives.

Our world has entered a new age in which the tech economy uses one-tenth of the world’s electricity, more than the entire world did in 1985. This has resulted in a few large tech companies and entrepreneurs now holding the highest concentration of wealth ever seen, along with one of the greatest wage disparities in the history of mankind. Axios reports this is why a growing number of scholars are referring to this as a new tech “gilded era.”

The wealthy tech entrepreneurs who helped fund these three ballot initiative campaigns would have made it harder to develop energy and metals here in the U.S., a jurisdiction with the strongest environmental and worker safety standards in the world.

Yet without plentiful energy, the growing array of computers and smart phones that are the basis of the tech economy would go dead, as would the ability to charge the exciting new generation of electric cars, scooters, buses and potentially airplanes. Without metals and plastics, these would disappear, along with all of the expensive, high-end sports equipment on the shelves of outdoor companies who supported these initiatives as well. In fact, forecast data from the International Energy Agency and other leading sources predict that emerging declines in crude oil usage for old-fashioned car transportation due to higher-efficiency cars and electric vehicles is being largely offset by increased uses of crude oil products for things like the plastics that are in virtually all high-end outdoor gear and tech products.

This makes the underlying question all the more important. Where should the materials necessary to make all of this stuff come from, and where should the energy necessary to power it come from?

We have several examples of producing these metals and this energy to the highest standards here in Alaska. We find examples of smart resource development at places like the Red Dog Mine and the North Slope. These are case studies in decades of smart global environmental stewardship that has also improved the quality of life, education, health care and life expectancy that parallel the experiences of Colorado and Washington. We may not have always done it perfectly, but like many in the tech economy, we have learned from mistakes and pressed forward with optimism, human ingenuity and modern technology.

Two billion people have the potential to move out of poverty across the globe in our lifetimes, a greater good we should all support. All will require more energy and minerals for their improving health care, smart phones, computers, and energy-efficient housing and transportation. We have the opportunity to do all of this right, and for this to be a catalyst that continues real advances in global environmental stewardship, benefiting those who use these products and those who produce them.

Later this month, the International Energy Agency is convening a gathering in Scotland of leading scientists, government leaders, financing entities and energy CEOs to talk about working together on exciting new technologies to potentially remove carbon from the atmosphere. I hope the wealthy interests who funded these unsuccessful and ill-conceived ballot measures will join these sorts of meaningful conversations and become part of the solution to where the stuff for their tech stuff and outdoor should come from, rather than part of the problem.

This is the sort of approach we all need to encourage as a rule, rather than an exception. Tuesday’s resounding defeat of these ballot measures in Alaska, Colorado and Washington should be the starting point for a better conversation.

David Parish is an Alaskan who has been involved in Alaska natural resource public policy issues for more than 30 years. He lives in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.