In March 2007, Democratic primary contender John Edwards released an ambitious climate and energy plan, calling for greenhouse gas reductions of 80 percent by 2050, a cap-and-trade program with auctioned permits, and a ban on conventional dirty coal plants.
At that point in the race, conventional wisdom was that Edwards was trying to stake out the left and Hillary was going for the center -- leaving Obama either nowhere to go, if you saw it like your average corpulent Democratic consultant, or free to maneuver, if you saw it like Obama. After Edwards released his plan, the obvious political move for a guy with his eye on the general election would have been for Obama to put out a somewhat more conservative version, to polish his centrist bona fides.
He didn't, though. His plan, released in October, was more detailed and politically astute than Edwards', but every bit as visionary. It proposes a declining carbon cap with fully auctioned permits, massive investments in energy research, job training, infrastructure, and efficiency, a renewable portfolio standard, a low-carbon fuel standard, higher fuel economy standards, and so on and on, in great detail. It is marred by its lavish support for biofuels and "clean coal," but that is a minor flaw in light of the historic changes it would spark if fully implemented.
Will it be fully implemented? In trying to figure out what Obama will do, it's helpful to contemplate how he navigated the campaign itself.
The overall campaign strategy was to play the long game, to proceed steadily toward big targets and not get flustered or distracted by the day-to-day news cycle. No-drama Obama.
After the primary was over (and gas prices spiked, and a financial crisis struck), Obama did what polling indicated: he played down the parts of his plan that threaten to raise energy prices and played up investments in clean technology and green jobs. It's a message that resonates across ideological and institutional lines. He was careful never to take sides in ecumenical energy debates: Nuclear is fine, if safe. Coal is fine, if the carbon is sequestered. Liquid coal is fine if it comes out of a low-carbon lifecycle. Offshore drilling is fine in exchange for serious support for renewables. What matters is not this or that energy source but the outcome, a cleaner economy.
This strategy allowed Obama to sound supportive of extractive and energy-intensive industries clustered in swing states while campaigning on an agenda that would utterly transform them. It allowed him the rhetorical space to refashion clean energy as a bread-and-butter jobs issue. It protected him from attacks on his right flank.
He never backed off his original proposals, though. The very day before the election he got attacked for telling the truth to a San Francisco newspaper. In the end, he was elected with a clear mandate for clean energy.
Now everyone wants to know what he'll do. It's seems reasonable to expect that he'll stick with what seems to be his instinctive strategy: focus on the long game.
What's that mean? For the Obama presidency, there are three biggies:
- Get out of Iraq.
- Do something about energy and carbon.
- Pass healthcare reform.
Based on precedent it's likely he'd be willing to negotiate or horse trade just about anything else in favor of tackling these three issues.
Now, how does that same strategy translate to climate/energy? The biggies in this area are:
- A declining cap on carbon -- the linchpin.
- Large investments in green R&D and infrastructure.
- Regulatory and tax support for clean electricity and alternative fuels.
The first two shape the foundation of the market and the third accelerates new industries within it.
Along the way, there are certain to be environmentalist-irritating concessions. There will be research and pilot-project funding for "clean coal," oil shale, and liquid coal. Ethanol subsidies are unlikely to be substantially curtailed. There will likely be more oil drilling. Horses will be traded.
The key is the long game. Obama worked carefully, diligently, and adeptly to get elected on a clean energy agenda. Despite the many reasons he gave greens to recoil along the way, he got there. There is every reason to believe he will now work carefully, diligently, and adeptly to get clean energy flowing to the country. That is in his best interest and the country's.
Greens are deeply accustomed to believing that politicians are humoring them and will abandon their concerns at the first sign of lobbying. It's not an unfounded fear, but it occasionally gives them the tone of jealous, paranoid lovers, flipping out over every perceived slight. Sometimes, though, what looks like a Sign He Doesn't Really Mean It from one angle looks like long-term strategic thinking from another. Throughout the campaign Obama has repeatedly shown that his critics miss the difference. Perhaps, at least for a short while, Obama has earned the presumption of good faith.
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Comments
View as Flat
ahmednewenergy Posted 5:59 am
06 Nov 2008
People like to joke about Al Gore or Arnold Schwarzenegger, but who are the real contenders?
One article I found so far discussed some choices:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/who-will-be-the-ne ...
Permalink
Jonas Posted 8:45 am
06 Nov 2008
He hasn't mentioned bioenergy, which is, so far, the only true sustainable and competitive source of renewable energy.
His support for clean coal is problematic too.
So: a more reasonable and tech-neutral subsidy regime, combined with more focus on the cost-competitiveness of renewables would make these minor mistakes a thing of the past.
Permalink
gohuskies Posted 11:08 pm
06 Nov 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:09 am
07 Nov 2008
I'm trying out a method where you quote someone you agree with to deflect criticism away from yourself ; )
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
jbird Posted 4:10 am
07 Nov 2008
Come on you guys, even if you find a way to safely sequester all of the carbon and the sulfur, coal is NOT the new Green.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 4:23 am
07 Nov 2008
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/?p=10
And this is just the beginning. The .com boom will pale in comparison to the green energy boom.
Permalink
salemguy Posted 7:40 am
08 Nov 2008
Excellent commentary, thank you. I'm puzzled, though (new here) at this assertion about O's energy plan:
"It is marred by its lavish support for biofuels and "clean coal," ....
Do you think we can do without biofuels in the future? What is lavish about his plan?
I think we agree that "clean coal" is an oxymoron, and what I see in his plan is a set of parameters that will moderate its development.
What am I missing?
Permalink
christophersj Posted 11:44 am
09 Nov 2008
Sunday's NY Times:
"On energy and climate change, Mr. Obama's focus has shifted markedly over the course of the year as the economy has weakened.
An earlier proposal put an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gases, requiring industry and utilities to buy credits from the government to emit carbon dioxide. That plan would produce hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue and drive up the cost of energy for everyone.
Mr. Obama is now emphasizing a program to spend $150 billion over 10 years to develop renewable sources of energy, like wind, solar and biofuels, and to encourage energy conservation in homes, offices and public buildings. He would also provide substantial financial help to the auto industry to develop high-mileage and electric cars. JOHN M. BRODER"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises. ...
Permalink