Passing an energy bill at any cost made us look weak, reduced climate change urgency, handed a significant victory to President Bush, and accomplished little of significance. If we had chosen an alternative path -- to take a stand with the fledgling U.S. renewables industry and challenge the obscenely rich oil and coal behemoths -- we would have lost, to be sure, but would have built political power, introduced a novel story, and strengthened ties with an important ally.
In acquiescing to a stripped-down energy bill, U.S. environmentalists lost an opportunity to reshape our climate story, strengthen our relationship with the renewable energy sector, and draw a bright line that distinguishes genuine supporters of functional climate action from fair weather friends. Instead, we opted for scraps, gaining emissions reductions of small significance compared to the global problem, displaying political weakness in place of principled courage, and handing a propaganda victory to a president who is singularly responsible for blocking international climate action.
Even environmentalists damned the final Senate version with faint praise. The "landmark" hailed by UCS also, in their words, "failed to take a giant step." NRDC called it a "down payment toward fighting global warming," and was "disappointed," and Environment America (formerly the environmental arm of U.S.PIRG) called the measure "historic," even as they observed, "big oil and big coal succeeded in stripping out ... very important parts of the bill."
Press and editorial reactions were less equivocal, as this sampling of headlines shows:
"Congress Walks Out on Renewable Energy"
U.S. News & World Report
December 15, 2007
"Disappointments on Climate"
New York Times editorial
December 17, 2007
"US Energy Bill Good For Biofuels; Refiners, Automakers"
CNN.com
December 14, 2007
"The Senate's Soft Energy Bill"
L.A. Times editorial
December 15, 2007
"Senate Passes Watered-Down Energy Bill"
Forbes.com
December 13, 2007
The legislation will be signed into law by a triumphant President Bush, who will boast that the measure furthers the promise he made in his State of the Union address to "modernize fuel economy standards for cars" toward a goal of conserving 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline by 2017.
The alternative? If we had concerned ourselves less with policy and more with basebuilding and political power; if our goal from the outset had been to seize a narrative opportunity, rather than pass a bill at any cost; if we had framed the question in terms of U.S. international leadership, rather than U.S. domestic policy; and if we were working on a five-year, rather than a one-year, plan; then our strategy would have developed very differently.
The direct trade-off between tax subsidies for the oil and coal industries versus support for the fledgling U.S. domestic renewables industry (which lags significantly behind European and Japanese competitors), embodied in the two provisions stripped from the Senate version of the bill, offered a better story, valuable allies, and ultimately, the more important conflict.
The major oil companies have reaped immense windfall profits in the last two years. Exxon Mobil recorded a 2006 profit of $39.5 billion ($154 million a day), the largest ever recorded, on top of $36 billion profit posted in 2005. The tax breaks that were repealed in the House version of the energy bill were worth a mere $13.5 billion over 10 years, and had been instituted in 2004 and 2005 to help struggling oil and gas companies compete with foreign competition.
As a policy matter, we were locked into fuel economy standards -- because that, after all, was the core of the original bill, and we have been fighting for decades to win it. But as a political and narrative matter, a head-to-head confrontation between environmentalists and a Horatio Alger-esque renewables industry on the one side, and obscenely rich oil and coal corporate behemoths on the other, would have gained us more ground.
By passing a weak bill, we let off steam, made President Bush look good, significantly reduced the urgency of climate change as a campaign issue, and delayed further congressional action. Had we gone toe-to-toe with Exxon Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, and Peabody Coal, we would have lost, to be sure, but also heightened the conflict and shaped the issue in unaccustomed economic terms -- corporate welfare to the richest corporations ever seen for the purpose of extracting the very substances that are endangering us, while putting a truly entrepreneurial, up-from-the-bootstraps renewables industry at a competitive disadvantage.
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
China blasts U.S. climate bill enabling penalties on trade partners
Southern Company dominates the climate lobbying scene
Comments View as Flat
justlou Posted 11:01 am
18 Dec 2007
Lost in the Numbers
I am confused about what any of this will actually mean in terms of any reductions. If the reductions are stated in terms of decreases in projected growth does this really mean an increase from today's numbers? And if there is an actual increase of energy consumption and CO2 emissions while we say we need a decrease, does this represent progress? Or are we opting for progress as measured by intensity per economic unit as Bush proposes?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:15 am
18 Dec 2007
Is there anyone in Congress...
...who could introduce an ideal energy bill (or climate mitigation bill), that could be used to rally grassroots? It would have no chance of passage and might only have a few co-signers, but it would give people something concrete to push for.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:27 am
18 Dec 2007
Pay me $100 an hour ...
... and I will show you that the Energy Bill requires MORE greenhouse gases to be emitted. If it turns out to be less, I will not bill ya the hours!
Onward through the fog
Permalink
mbraly Posted 1:14 pm
18 Dec 2007
Still Trapped in the Environmental Ghetto
Of course Bush looks good by signing a too-little-too-late energy bill, but I'll take it and run.
Even if we had a Democrat in the White House and veto proof majorities in both houses, we are going to continue to be disappointed until we free clean energy from the environmental ghetto -- to borrow the Nordhaus and Shellenberger phrase.
The PBS News Hour report said it all. An even-handed report, not the top story, followed by the evitable discussions. And who represents clean energy? the National Wildlife Federation and something called the National Energy Policy Council.
Then follows an update on the spotted owl situation in the Pacific Northwest.
Folks, this is not about saving wildlife or the spotted owl. It's about saving us. It's national economic policy, security policy, trade policy, and so much else.
With warmest thanks to the environmental movement for what it has done, and with best wishes for wildlife and all they represent, will a leader who understands what is at stake here please step forward!
Mark Braly
Permalink
JerseyCurmudgeon2 Posted 2:31 pm
18 Dec 2007
Worse than worthless
Before the bill came up for a final vote, I knew that it was worse than worthless, for all the reasons cited in Ken Ward's excellent post.
As a small-wind advocate, I was torn by this, since the final bill did contain some crumbs for small-wind. But the total effect of the bill is exactly what Ward's post says it is.
My first reaction to the watering down of the bill was to call Harry Reid's office and ask that he pull the bill rather than have it voted on. I went so far as to say that, if he didn't grow a spine on this issue, I would ask MY Senators to support someone else as Majority Leader.
Since then, I have been reading a lot of blog posts saying essentially the same thing. We need someone who understands the ruthless will-to-win of the other side, and is ready, willing, and able to beat them at their own game. In short, someone who knows that the only way to respond when they throw hardballs is to throw live grenades back.
Reid ain't it.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:01 pm
18 Dec 2007
2 Techs
There were two great technology stories today.
Nanowire battery holds 10 times the charge of existing ones
http://physorg.com/news117212815.html
"The new version, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers."
Nanosolar 'prints' first flexible solar cells
http://www.news.com/greentech/8301-11128_3-9835241-54.htm ...
"Well-financed solar start-up Nanosolar on Tuesday said it has started shipping its flexible thin-film solar cells, meeting its own deadline and marking a milestone for alternative solar-cell materials."
My Log
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:51 pm
18 Dec 2007
Great post, Ken
And I agree with your sentiments.
But surprised you don't mention the huge increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Once in place, it will be virtually impossible to repeal.
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:39 pm
18 Dec 2007
Mad Musings from Corn Land
I saw a documentary about Ralph Nader yesterday evening on PBS. Listening to speeches of those who supported Nader during his run for president in 2000 against Gore and Bush, I was struck by the similarity of arguments and language presented here and those supporting Nader.
The outcome of all the Naderites' 2000 standing on principle, base building, political power, framing narratives, and long range planning, was to hand the presidency to George Bush, a very significant victory indeed. (OK, for you Nader fans, the old man's supreme court did make the final judgement after Florida's supreme screwup and the people did elect my man, Al).
So, while I tend to agree with the sentiment in the editorial presented here, I did not see a groundswell of interest or support for a stronger bill. Plus, given the evenly split power in Washington, the economic effects of energy prices or the climatic effects of global warming are not bad enough yet to push Washington beyond the first steps of legislation, including some bad first steps (corn ethanol). It took oil prices approaching $100 and a public fed up with the Iraq war to get a new CAFE standard which was 20 years late in coming (OK, Reagan and another Bush were in power back then but many of the people buying SUVs with tax cuts and waving the flag (for more tax cuts) were responsible for that and getting another Bush in hand). Had it not been for Toyota, Honda and some Euro brands giving Americans a choice of better mpg we'd really be in a world of shit on oil imports and it would not have taken 9/11 for God to tell GW to screw Saddam.
About all I can make of this is that either way, weaker bill or no bill, would have been a significant victory for Bush (and big oil).
And by 2020 the US fleet will be averaging about 30 mpg, about 5 mpg below the new standard, and 4 mpg less than I was getting in my Toyota Camry in 1990! We'll be importing just as much oil from Russia, the middle east, and Hugo land, and importing more nitrogen from Russia and elsewhere to grow the corn to reduce our dependency on all that "foreign" oil and to help GM and Ford keep their FFV hogs "above standard" and burning more oil. If the incongruities in all this energy policy have escaped you, I have just attempted to be your guide.
Damn, our manifest destiny has turned into a Little Big Horn syndrome, if the past 7 years isn't enough to prove my point. "We got em boys! Quick, quick!"
Permalink
1Eco Posted 2:09 am
19 Dec 2007
Thank you Ken Ward
Nice to find someone else who shares a few of my own views here.
Ecosystems empowerment for the rural poor.
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 12:38 pm
19 Dec 2007
RFS
For one, I don't know much about RFS. Secondly, I see the most important conflict as renewables & efficiency vs. fossil fuels and as we aren't even able to fight that one, I don't see us capable of joining battle with agribusiness.
Ken Ward ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 1:12 pm
19 Dec 2007
Ralph compared to climate
Interesting comparison, justlou, particularly for me. I have been an organizer and campaigner for nearly thirty years now, in part because I went to hear Ralph speak. In 2000 I supported Nader. In 2004 I was the only full time (volunteer) staff for the "No on Nader" campaign (http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1020-10.htm) run by former Nader's Raiders and PIRG/Public Citizen Alumni. If Ralph were to announce another run, but run as a single issue candidate on climate, I'd support him again.
I think there's sound reasoning behind this apparent flip-flopping, and it has to do with what kind of political change should we be expecting. What I have in mind in the above post is not the classic, long term organizing of class struggle. I think that climate change impacts are accelerating at such a fast pace that the world will very quickly be brought to a point of crisis. Whether that is driven by collapse of ocean eco-systems or collapse of sections of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, and rapid sea level rise, or some other crisis, we don't know. But every indicator is coming in at or above our highest estimates, and it is accelerating.
When we do reach that first point of crisis, there will be a state of political fluidity, and the flip side of the streak of libertarianism in the American character, which is the spirit of optimism, sacrifice and coming together across barriers of class, race and creed, will be reasserted -- if it is called forth. In other words, the raw material and conditions will be made available to undertake the huge transformation that seems impossible, but is fully within our means if we decide to do it.
At this point, however, the only real alternative that is being readied as a last minute remedial response to catastrophic climate impacts is lofting billions of small satellites and/or injecting sulfates into the upper atmosphere to block some of the sun's energy.
If we are to put a functional global response on the table, we have to think now in terms of creating points on conflict that build our strength outside environmentalists, target fossil fuels, put forward the concept that we could transform our energy system quickly, without hardship and gaining many additional benefits, and that we should and must provide and help pay for this transition globally as well as in the US.
If Ralph, or anyone else will run on such a platform, I'll sign up to work on their campaign tomorrow. I don't see that we gain anything by supporting less then half measures in the meantime.
Ken Ward ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 1:15 pm
20 Dec 2007
we can still win a lot...
if we get out there and PUSH HARD for residential/commercial URBAN PV/wind subsidies, rather than for environment-destroying, super-expensive, utility-paying "large scale renewables."
the technology, materials, trained installer base, infrastructure and TOTAL GREEN results are all sitting there, waiting for a groundswell. the big utilities are trying to trick us all into ignoring decentralized, independent energy generation and into supporting total ecosystem obliteration in the form of gigantic solar arrays and wind farms. why? because they want to keep all the money flowing to themselves.
meet the new boss. same as the old boss. don't get so caught up in climate change and catchphrases that you forget to notice that the forms of "renewables" that are totally available today for homes and businesses are truly green, and the huge, destructive, wasteful power plants and high-voltage lines are not green, even if they (after accounting for irreversible loss of wilderness, fire dangers, etc.) eventually do not emit greenhouse gases.
all renewables are not created equal. fight for the ones that WE CAN IMPLEMENT without some greedy middleman, and we can win...
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink