Ever since the oil embargo of the 1970s, Americans have known that we need an energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. With the discovery that fossil fuels contribute significantly to global warming, coupled with the entanglements involved in securing foreign supplies, the case has only grown (not to mention the environmental havoc wrought by catastrophes like the Exxon Valdez spill and the ongoing calamity in the Gulf of Mexico).
But time and again, America has come up short.
President Carter’s 1977 speech on the need for a new energy policy is as prescient today as it was more than 30 years ago. During the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, with Al Gore as vice-president, almost no progress was made. Under George Bush and Dick Cheney, we moved significantly backwards; the Administration was run by former oilmen all-too-eager to do the industry’s bidding, with no regard for the public good. Bush not only reneged on his word to regulate greenhouse gases, but his administration fought against individual states that embarked on their own greenhouse gas reduction programs (so much for states’ rights).
Under Obama it was supposed to be different.
Finally, we had a president who understood the dangers that global warming poses; and with large Democratic majorities, there was widespread hope that the oil and coal interests would not be allowed to block new climate legislation.
But then a couple things happened.
Foremost, the GOP went completely off the rails and embraced the worst elements of its anti-science, anti-regulatory base. Even John McCain denounced the cap and trade legislation that he and Obama had agreed on only two years ago. A party that for the most part doesn’t believe in climate science has become so wedded to an anti-Obama, anti-government agenda that it can’t see the huge security and economic competitive advantages of a serious energy policy. The party that prides itself on the ability of markets and businesses to adapt to changing conditions now claims that a modest price increase in fossil fuels will spell the end of American free enterprise. The reality is the exact opposite: America will be economically much weaker in the coming decades without new energy legislation, as China, Brazil, and the EU proceed full-speed ahead, building the energy technology of tomorrow.
In a particularly sad testament to the dysfunctional state of the Senate, where 60 votes are now needed to even bring legislation to the floor, the Gulf oil spill seems to have made it even less likely that the Kerry-Lieberman energy bill will pass. It had been assumed that expanded offshore drilling would attract the votes of a few “centrist” Democrats; now, given the shifting politics of offshore drilling, they’re not likely to support the legislation. If the bill doesn’t pass during this Congress it’s unlikely to pass over the new few years, given the almost certain prospect of dwindling Democratic majorities.
One wrinkle in the debate is the role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has issued new regulations set to go into effect in July 2011 that limit the greenhouse gas emissions of the country’s biggest stationary sources. This was clearly meant as a warning to Congress: do nothing and we will step in. How this plays out will be fascinating because there is nothing that industry fears more than the heavy hand of the EPA (which is one reason they have so far supported the bill before Congress).
To attract industry support, the legislation has been so watered down that many in the environmental community wonder if in fact it’s worth supporting. I believe it is, if only because it’s a foundation that nudges us in the right direction (the same as the healthcare bill).
Beyond politics, beyond the security and competitive issues, is the larger moral case. The evidence is only increasing that global warming is happening, that it’s accelerating, and that it will have dire consequences for humanity. Most people alive today should still be around in 2020, 2030, and beyond, and will likely witness the effects of climate change on a scale that is hard to comprehend right now. The idea that the profits of the fossil fuel industries should outweigh the global environment is stunning. It is another reminder that something is terribly wrong with the political structure in Washington.
Hopefully, we will come around and do what is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Time will tell.
But if we fail to act there will be plenty of blame to go around. In addition to the Republicans and the “centrist” Democrats, President Obama will deserve his share. He spent heavy political capital on healthcare, but has not taken nearly as strong a stance to align his Administration’s policies with his campaign rhetoric on climate change. The American people, addicted to the illusion of cheap energy, are also to blame.
The judgment of history will not be kind if we can’t bring ourselves to do the right thing on energy policy. Tens of millions of displaced peoples, tens of thousands of extinct species, and a much less hospitable environment could make our inaction seem criminal to future generations.
Jason Scorse