Dems Better On Energy, But Not By Enough

The Nation: Many Democratic '08 Hopefuls Have Plans, Yet Bolder Action Is Needed

(The Nation)  This column was written by Robert L. Borosage & Katrina Vanden Heuvel .

---

Confronted with the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, rising gas prices and the "inconvenient truth" of global warming, Americans are looking for leadership on energy independence and the threat posed by catastrophic climate change. Even George Bush, Big Oil's pocketed President, now pays lip service to the need to end our "addiction to oil." But with his policies making us more, not less, dependent on foreign oil, energy will be at the center of the 2008 campaign. The question is whether the presidential candidates have caught up with the voters.

Energy independence now rivals healthcare as the top domestic concern. In an April Center for American Progress poll, 60 percent of Americans supported bold action on global warming. A staggering 79 percent believe shifting to alternative energy sources will help the economy and create, not cost, jobs. Voters think the United States is falling behind other countries, and they want government to lead.

This consensus has yet to penetrate Republican presidential campaigns. While the GOP candidates nod rhetorically to the importance of energy independence, they offer little policy vision and few proposals. Frontrunner Rudy Giuliani doesn't mention energy, climate change or the environment in the issue section of his website — a bizarre omission for someone pitching a campaign on his ability to wage a smart "war on terror." Mitt Romney echoes Dick Cheney, pitting the economy against clean energy, warning that "Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore."

Only Senator John McCain stands apart from the lemmings, calling for action on climate change and co-sponsoring a cap on carbon emissions. McCain couples this with strong support of nuclear power, dismissing continuing concerns about cost, waste storage, safety and proliferation.

In stark contrast, all the Democratic candidates offer bolder initiatives. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have embraced the need for an Apollo-like program — a multilayered drive for energy independence. And Barack Obama eloquently depicts a generational challenge: "At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil."

Each major Democratic candidate offers a signature proposal. League of Conservation Voters head Gene Karpinski praises Edwards for having the "most comprehensive" plan. Edwards argues generally that dealing with global warming is more important than closing budget deficits or sustaining the Bush tax cuts. He would generate $13 billion a year from a carbon dioxide cap and a rollback of oil subsidies and use that to finance renewable energy technologies. He calls for reducing oil consumption by increasing the percentage of biofuels in the fuel supply and by giving subsidies to auto manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles. He would mandate that 25 percent of our electricity come from renewable resources by 2025 and require that all new demand through the next decade be met through improved energy efficiency. He'd give consumers tax breaks for purchasing efficient cars and appliances and increase spending on clean-energy research and development. Edwards says this will help generate jobs and growth, estimating that 1 million jobs would be created.

Senator Chris Dodd is nearly as comprehensive, and more courageous. He scorns as ineffective the "cap and trade" program the other candidates support and bites the bullet for a carbon tax he estimates could generate $50 billion a year to be spent deploying clean energy and energy-efficient technologies. Dodd also calls for a job-training program to help workers gain experience and upward mobility in emerging clean-energy markets.

Senator Clinton makes jobs central to her argument. She alone of the leading candidates attended the January Apollo Alliance summit, where she argued that "the clean energy agenda is a jobs agenda." Her signature initiative is a Strategic Energy Fund of $50 billion over ten years, to be raised by taxing the "excess profits" and rolling back the subsidies of Big Oil. The fund would subsidize existing technologies and seed research and development. Of the candidates, Clinton is the most forceful in taking on the oil companies and challenging Bush Administration failures.

Senator Obama's eloquence is unmatched — even by his policies. He has aggressively pushed for coupling renewable fuels and vehicle efficiency. His distinctive initiative links mandates for higher mileage standards to billions in incentives to auto companies to retool assembly lines to produce high-mileage vehicles. He would do this by having the government take over a portion of the companies' staggering retiree healthcare costs in return for spending half the savings on retooling. This cleverly marries healthcare and energy, two compelling national concerns, but it's limited to a handful of companies in one industry. Obama has run into trouble with environmentalists by championing the use of liquefied coal as an alternative to gasoline, which would aid energy independence but add to global warming and pollution.

Governor Bill Richardson, a former Energy Secretary, joins the call for a "massive...Apollo Program." He argues that while everybody talks about these things, he's actually done them. Under his administration New Mexico has become a leader in clean energy. Richardson has established an energy standard mandating that renewables produce 20 percent of the state's energy by 2020, has provided tax credits for investment in energy-efficient buildings and created the nation's first Renewable Energy Transmission Authority, which facilitates the deployment of existing alternatives.

While his plans aren't as detailed, Representative Dennis Kucinich, a leading opponent of nuclear power for decades, offers the broadest vision, calling for a "Global Green Deal." He urges that we not only invest at home but help supply developing nations with "cheap, dependable, renewable energy technologies like wind and solar."

In sum, Democrats call for a dramatic change of course from Bush's policies, and their rhetoric touts a compelling national mission. Their policies, however, are more cautious. Except for Edwards, Democrats still hew to fiscal discipline. They scrimp on spending and emphasize caps, regulations and taxes, thus giving traction to Republican gibes that Democratic policies will hurt the economy.

Worse, Democrats seem to belie their own rhetoric by treating the issue as simply one part of a broader policy agenda. No one has yet portrayed the scope and urgency of this national imperative. A bold leader would summon the nation to action. She or he would call for a crash drive for energy independence, spurring individual, business and government action. Public investment in research and development would galvanize the scientific community; investment in rebuilding our cities would create jobs and pay for itself in lower energy costs; aggressive support for renewables would secure our energy supply, lower trade deficits and free us from future resource wars. A green job corps could train workers and harness the idealism of the young. Contrast this vital investment in our future — and the economic growth it would stimulate — with the nearly $500 billion (headed toward $2 trillion) the Bush Administration has squandered on the Iraq War.

Around the globe, people are learning that we have no choice but to move rapidly to a new energy future. Corporations are getting the message. Al Gore is electrifying activists and the young. Americans will respond to a leader who inspires us to meet that challenge, unleashes our energies and imaginations, acknowledges the costs and wrenching changes required while demonstrating the benefits — new jobs and technologies, cheaper and more dependable power, cleaner air, lower trade deficits. The transition to clean energy is both an immense challenge and an immense opportunity. Under Bush, the right has failed the test, and so far the Republican candidates have punted. The public is looking for leadership. That job is still open.

[sjc_1]

"Gas prices will drop just before the next election, or any time it looks like a real alternative energy policy is getting any traction."

An alternative was available in 1999 from the Clinton/Gore administration called the PNGV. It was a diesel hybrid from all three U.S. auto makers that got 70 mpg. Add more batteries and make them PHEVs and the do even better.

But Bush changed the PNGV program to the Freedom Car program which put the emphasis on hydrogen decades away. I believe he did that so that the price of oil would remain high for decades.

[aaabee-2009]

So tell me what the Republicans are doing?

What has Bush done to get us off the oil nipple, except take us to war.

No Democrat ever took us to war for oil.

And the nuclear power plants were non-vogue after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened. Average Joe got scared and demanded that nuclear power plants be shelved, due to the danger and the nuclear waste that no one could do anything with except bury in leaky containers.

But that is okay, you go ahead and blame Democrats while your oil rich president and vice president keep us in Iraq, drain our countries budget, and kill US Soldiers for oil this very minute.

More and more people are seeing that Dems are being held up as scapegoats and Reps have become nothing more than base criminials.

[perception5]

So the Republicans don't do anything about getting off the oil teet except blame Democrats for not doing enough?
Posted by AaaBee at 09:01 AM : May 21, 2007

.......no AaaBee, we are blaming the Democrats and their rich liberal donors, the conservationists, for BLOCKING all progress at drilling for more oil, refining that oil, and looking for new sources of energy.....

The Democrats ARE the reason why America has no energy today.........and there are no quick fixes........thanks........DEMS.......2008 can't get here fast enough.

[aaabee-2009]

So the Republicans don't do anything about getting off the oil teet except blame Democrats for not doing enough?

[perception5]

More lies from the vile left-wing Nation magazine........lets cover the facts:

No new Nuclear plants since the 1970's

No new refineries since the 1970's

No new oil fields since the 1970's

Gee........I wonder why we are running out of energy.

The fact is the Democrat party along with their rich liberal conervationist donors have BLOCKED all of these three issues stated above throught legislative action or by throwing years of "environmental impact" statements under the wheels of "energy companies".

Nation, get a grip ........the Party that you "blindly" support IS THE REASON why America does no have enough energy today.

So if Americans don't like these high prices........ please thank your nearest Democrat..........and meanwhile our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack "covers up" the REAL reasons why.............. really sad but completely true.

[toddpw01]

Gas prices will drop just before the next election, or any time it looks like a real alternative energy policy is getting any traction. That's how they starved public demand for the EV1 and other vehicles complying with California's zero-emissions legislation back around the turn of the millennium.

Corn ethanol takes way too much energy to produce and is having all kinds of horrible cascade effects on the world corn market (Mexican tortilla riots) and by sucking farmland away from other crops. It is corporate welfare, not good energy policy.

Hydrogen fuel cells are like "staying the course" in Iraq. Hey Charlie Brown, Lucy swears she won't yank the football away this time! Really!

Most of the energy policy discussion is a sideshow to fool the public into thinking something will get done, while all real legislation contains enough fine print to protect the status quo. Hmm, that's how most legislation works nowadays. Sigh.

[sparks224]

Gasoline is a dead end.

[sparks224]

i-tack,
Yes, you are putting electric cars on the grid. However, electric %u201Cgas%u201D is a fraction of the cost and quite a bit less pollution per car, even considering the dirty power plants.

Ideally you would drive your electric vehicle to your job. The photovoltaic panels on the roof of your building would recharge your batteries while you work, and you%u2019d drive home.

You could have a plug in hybrid using alcohol if range is a concern.

And yes, the batteries will have to be recycled.

We must stop purchasing gasoline.

[i-tack]

Sparks224,

If you get an electric car, it would be wise to know where your electricity comes from. If it comes from a coal-fired or oil-fired plant, it won't help much.

Disposing of the batteries won't be a great deal for you either.

Plug-in electrics are still a couple of years away. I've seen some of the cost breakdowns on those and they look promising if your commuting schedule is workable and we assume a stagnant price structure for the juice.

[i-tack]

Why is oil/gas used more often? Simple. It is cheaper, hence more-efficient and has a greater energy density, hence more-efficient, than other means.

Wind and solar are intriguing options, but at best they will only be 'bit-players' in the overall scheme.

Nuclear is forbidden by many of the same people protesting our use of oil.

More efficient electric generation facilities are forbidden.

More efficient oil refinaries are forbidden.

EPA requires boutique fuels for different cities to reduce their emmission levels (Chicago highest price gas - not a coincidence).

Coal, of which the US possesses the world's largest supply, is derided as an unacceptable option.

Opening new oil fields is forbidden as a destroyer of our environment.

No wonder that we find ourselves in the current state of supply and demand. Make balanced changes to all (not just some) of these parameters and we might just see the kind of positive change necessary to move this country forward - while minimizing the amount of currency that we send outside of the country affecting our balance of trade negatively

In other words, it is not just about the price of gas

[sparks224]

I'm going to get an electric car just for the "I told you so" factor.

When all these SUV drivers start running around shouting "oh my god we have to do something!", I can say "welcome to the club Einstein".

I don't have any kids, so for me the planet only has to be survivable for another 50 years or so.

[sjc_1]

Energy is a big deal. Modern societies must have a sufficient supply of energy to continue. Since fossil fuels are finite, we have effectively declared that our society is finite. As long as we are looking for future energy supplies, let us make them clean and sustainable. This new energy future can be positive for out economy. We would lower the trade imbalance and create new clean industries that supply equipment and services to this new sector.

[nfarquhar-2009]

I don't think you read Richardson's plan, released Thursday.

[cfin5]

I dont think the quest for more energy efficient products should ever stop. I hear of oil companies buying up good ideas and then shelving them so they can keep on milking us dry at the gas pump. Who ever gets in the White House, Please do some excecutive orders regarding this issue since our politicians are to busy bickering about who likes the voters the most.......Most of us are still paying for the gas that we bought last year on credit for crying out loud!..........I'm for honesty too! GO RON PAUL!!!

[im4honesty]

GORE/EDWARDS 2008!!