Taking a moment here to think about the solar power purchase agreement today from the point of view of the “mindful ecological citizen.”
I want to understand how our democratic system allowed it to take shape. It would be (maybe will be) fascinating to retrospectively examine how the working group and project management team moved along Stout’s and Keast’s continuum of collaboration. We have been engaged in a process that involves individuals with their own preferences, intrinsic, and extrinsic motivations who perceive the process differently and the benefits of the process’s outcomes differently. Some of us are elected and some of us are staff. Each of us has their own positions of authority, influence, and power; we are not blank slates. Those positional differences create different incentives to participate or resist the projects. What are they?
The rhetoric that has surrounded it is also very interesting in the maelstrom that surrounds climate change. There is the rational, goal-oriented, and process language. There are also appeals to different values like security, fairness, care, and responsibility. Starting in the late summer, a local talk radio host (who’s also Chief of Staff for a state representative) and a local borough council member (who is also on the staff of the same state representative) have been using their radio show in an attempt to kill the project. Their tactics are very similar to those used by fossil-fuel-funded merchants of doubt. What are the rhetorical methods used by factions and what can communities seeking to draw down emissions learn from an analysis of these tactics?
The project’s creation can also be looked at through the lens of “policy windows.” What were the political conditions in local governments, the problem streams they faced, and the policy options available that could open the window? As the project’s instigator, I have my own perspective on this, but I think it could be useful to see it from a higher and more detached view that can inform others.
