Cross-posted from the Breakthrough Blog
For the past two weeks, Democrats have been losing the energy debate — badly. Poll after poll showed Democrats losing major ground in the fight over new oil drilling, and some declared that energy could be a turning point in the run-up to November. At the Breakthrough Institute, we ran a series of responses: here, here, here, and here.
But a “New Energy Reform Act” proposal from the “Gang of 10″ — a group of five Democrats and five Republicans in the Senate — is starting to gain serious traction and could upset the debate.
The proposal has three basic components: 1) Tens of billions of dollars in federal investments to support the transition to advanced non-petroleum fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure; 2) Extension of renewable energy tax credits and incentives; and 3) Expanded offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and southern Atlantic states, while preserving ANWR and the West Coast.
The proposal represents a bi-partisan approach that could sweep aside Republican dominance of the energy debate, gain significant bi-partisan support after the August recess (likely to rally more support than the insistent and inflexible “Drill Here, Drill Now” sloganeering), and secure passage through Congress. It combines limited offshore drilling with major investments in new advanced alternative vehicle technology and the critical extension of renewable energy tax credits — and its $84 billion in funding would come from repealing tax breaks on oil and gas companies and increasing their licensing fees.
The reactions so far have indicated that most see this as a saving grace for Democrats and climate advocates. Here’s a short roundup:
Peter Keating, “Obama’s Energy Edge,” in the the New York Magazine:
McCain’s ground game was working in the pre-Gang of 10 environment, and he was looking forward to keeping Obama uncomfortable on drilling. Because he has supported tax breaks for oil companies, and has opposed repealing them to pay for investments in clean energy, McCain now faces an uncomfortable choice. He can oppose the Gang of 10 plan, which will force him to defend his past votes and to explain how his stance fits into the “all of the above” approach on energy that he says he advocates. Or he can change his position and support the plan’s tax increases and limits on drilling.
For Obama, in contrast, the Gang of 10 plan is a Hail Mary of a godsend. It might let him not only get past drilling and refocus on energy efficiency, but also highlight his willingness to work with Republicans at a time when the congressional Democratic leadership has been particularly inept. That’s why Obama was willing to risk charges of flip-flopping on another issue and support the plan. “I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good, particularly since there’s so much good in this compromise,” he said last Monday.
Sam Stein, “Has McCain Walked Into An Energy Trap?“
The energy debate took what could be a significant turn this past weekend: a bipartisan effort in Congress has created headaches for both Barack Obama and John McCain. But while the presumptive Democratic nominee has been criticized for acquiescing to the idea of some off-shore drilling, his Republican counterpart finds himself in a more tenuous position: cast as an unwilling-to-compromise defender of big oil, on the wrong side of public opinion.
Nate Silver, “The Gang of 10: Obama’s Checkmate?“:
Stay tuned for more on the debate of the century.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I don’t think the New ERA proposal is as balanced as you make it out to be. Yes, it does include some provisions for clean energy, efficiency, and green jobs training. But all of that amounts to lip service compared to the amount of money set aside for coal-to-liquids and the and the essential carte blanche for nuclear power. Not to mention that the repeal of the offshore drilling moratorium will only result in a massive land-(or ocean)grab and continue to take us down the wrong path.
I understand the need to compromise in order to advance clean energy, but that doesn’t mean that we have to accept any proposal that is offered in exchange for the things we want. We must be discerning in our willingness to compromise and realize that we might actually be giving up much more than we’re getting in return.
The “Gang of 10″ proposal attempts appear “balanced” by tying minimal support for a few real solutions to a smorgasbord of public financing for dirty fossil fuels. While all of the numbers haven’t been fleshed out enough by the “Gang of 10″ to do a dollar for dollar comparison of support for clean energy vs. dirty fossil fuels and nukes, it is plainly clear that the proposal falls far short of anything resembling a balanced approach.
This suite of false solutions is mirrored in the House by the “all of the above” crowd (which you seem to allude to above), many of whom are filibustering in the dark during the August recess with calls for Congress to return and vote on offshore drilling. But they don’t just want drilling either–they also want to provide funding for and otherwise enable liquid coal and other dirty fuels.
The Center for American Progress (no, I don’t work for them) concludes that many of the House members who are coordinating this drumbeat for offshore drilling have failed to support clean energy at almost every opportunity.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/renewablevotes/renewablevotes.html
The “Gang of 10″ and the “all of the above” folks aren’t interested in a real compromise that helps us to address high energy prices, achieve energy independence or advance clean energy solutions to global warming in a meaningful way. Their attempts are about appeasing us with peanuts while dirty energy companies walk away with more loot for their coffers.
Thanks for the comment, Colin, I appreciate your critique. Certainly nothing here is perfect — if only we could get the ideal energy policy, neh? But given how badly Democrats have been losing this debate — and how costly it could be for the November elections — I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on a better and feasible approach for the Democrats to take?
There’s a big difference between imperfection and a proposal that claims to be balanced but, in reality, is a big giveaway to the fossil fuel industries that have dominated energy policy for decades. The difference is called truth and equity.
It is unacceptable for us to accept $84 billion in limited support for clean energy and hand over the golden goose to Republicans and the dirty energy industry. There is ultimately no reason we should trade anything for funding for CTL and nukes.
As far as what Democrats should do:
With regard to the “Gang of 10″ the only tenable response for Democrats who wish to address this particular proposal seems to be to wait for it to be introduced and work to drastically improve the proposal in committee and on the floor by scrapping the dirty fuel subsidies.
With regard to the elections, I think there is tremendous public support to be gained by exposing these “Gang of 10″ and “all of the above” proposals as scams promulgated by Republicans who desperately want to maintain the status quo. As far as drilling in particular, exposing the oil companies’ manipulation offers the same opportunity to gain public support.
We know that the Republicans run a well-honed, well oiled (no pun intended) public relations/distortion machine. The facts that offshore drilling is a false solution to our energy problems are well established, but facts are only of secondary importance (if that) in PR spin. Democrats need to stand up to this attempt to hoodwink the American public into swallowing this messy proposal, they need to show resolve and not give in to browbeating and other disingenuous attempts to allow more drilling, more mountain top removal, more of the same.
I’m not exactly sure of what the terms of a fair compromise would look like, but the industries that have dominated for the past several decades (at the expense of the climate, public health, etc.) do not deserve tremendous additional support in this transition to non-fossil fuel based energy sources. They have tremendous capital available to help them transition. But perhaps the proper compromise in the “Gang of 10″ proposal is the funding to help the automakers transition, even though they have stalled and opposed increased efficiency. A short term solution might be to repeal the oil company subsidies and use them for public rebates for high gas prices, mass transit vouchers, etc. while we speed up the calendar on the CAFE increase and strive for 40 or 50 mpg instead of 35.
To be honest, while it is clear that the “Gang of 10″ proposal is gaining some traction, it is also receiving tremendous criticism from conservatives. If you have some time to spare, check out this transcript of a Limbaugh radio show a few days ago http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080808/content/01125112.guest.html
To me, that suggests that this legislation will have a tough time getting passed as is. Many won’t support it because of the giveaways to the oil, coal, and nuke industries, and others won’t support it because of the $84 billion bone the proposal throws to alternatives. I hope that we haven’t arrived at an impasse, but I also oppose acquiescing to the false solutions offered in these proposals.
Colin, numerous Democrats and progressive groups have been calling out oil drilling for the false solution it is. But the poll numbers continue to show that the American people are so alarmed by energy prices that they’re willing to buy the “drill here dill now” sloganeering because for them, it’s a simplistic “supply and demand” mindset. That’s why even environmentalists like Mark Udall are reversing their opposition to drilling.
Sorry to say, Colin, but what you’re saying here is just the classical liberal reaction to these kind of issues: “We just need to inform the public!” It’s not going to work. And if Democrats lose the energy debate — the debate of century — we could see massive implications for November and for the future. And forget climate legislation — if Republicans can beat Democrats on new oil drilling, they will destroy us on policy that tries to increase energy prices.
There’s an old saying that applies well here: “Deal with reality — or reality will deal with you.”
“Inform the public[...]is not going to work.”
I don’t think this type of cyncism — and the politics of wheeling, dealing and manipulation that emerge from it — are something the “american public” are not going to accept.
“Inform the public[...]is not going to work.”
I don’t think this type of cyncism — and the politics of wheeling, dealing and manipulation that emerge from it — are something the “american public” are going to accept.
Teryn, you seem resigned to accept more drilling as inevitable, but it’s only inevitable if we allow it to happen. So far, the Democrats have yet to stand up to these false solutions in a meaningful way. Sure a few Dems. are calling it out for what it is, but the leadership seems willing to negotiate and exchange these blank checks for fossil fuels for what amounts to little for renewable energy. The Dems are not issuing a constant drumbeat of a consistent message like most of the GOP is.
Furthermore, you seem to be saying that since the American public has bought into the notion that more drilling will bring down higher energy prices that we should just accept that. That we must work within the confines of the public perception that the GOP spin machine has created. Clearly the reason people have concluded that more drilling equals lower prices is because the GOP spin machine has “informed” them that it will. I have already stated that this isn’t just about the facts and disseminating correct information.
The reason folks are entertaining this notion is because we haven’t articulated a straightforward, positive vision for addressing these issues in a way that doesn’t include more of the same. The public is being forced to choose a very far-from-perfect “something” over “nothing.” And the GOP is doing a good job of dismissing the Dem. energy plan as nothing more than tire gauges.
The only part of the current scenario that will result in the Dems “loosing the energy debate” is giving into the Gang of 10/”all of the above” crowds. Any perception of “reality” that suggests we have to continue to accept the fossil fuels that are being shoved down our throats disregards our need and the current opportunity to move into a truly new era of energy production.
The way I see it, we can either choose to be visionary and inspiring here or we can let the GOP drag us down a new generation of oil wells.
Let’s deal with reality by changing the reality.
Lets change the reality by keeping our eyes on the big picture – a just way to solve the global energy problem. I personally don’t think that nit-picking over the few thousand barrels from offshore drilling is where we should focus our energy. If we succeed in shifting the energy paradigm, offshore drilling is going to look silly, expensive and old fashioned in a couple years.
I’m not happy about it, but I back Obama in saying, ‘fine, we’ll consider offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy strategy that inspires our nation.’ Of course there’s the danger of compromising now leading to compromising later and so-on, but that’s only if you see this as a battle that’s going to be uphill the whole way. I don’t think we’re going to have to fight tooth and claw for every inch of our path to a just and sustainable society. I think that certain systems are already, or will soon be growing and changing the nature of energy on their own. The goal is to get the boulder up and over the hill so it can start rolling on its own. Lets keep our eyes on that prize.
Yeah, drilling for more oil is such a great way to fight global warming. Awesome job Democrats. Way to be the opposition party!