| More than just that though, this plan will not achieve the goals the President outlined in the announcement. Opening up these areas to exploration will not satisfy America's use of oil. We have a mere 3% of the world's oil reserves. We use a greater portion of the actual amount drilled than that. As of today, oil corporations already have legal access to 68 million acres of land, including 40 million acres off-shore, on which they are not drilling. What will opening these areas do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? I won't mince words on this: this proposal is similar to Bush's off-shore drilling proposal that Democrats justifiably lashed out at. Given the way the last 14 months have developed, I don't expect a similar reaction to Obama.
American businesses will not be competitive as a result of opening these areas. Europe, China and India are spending billions of dollars every year to develop the energy infrastructure of the 21st century. By continuing to chase 20th century energy sources, we ensure our businesses will be less competitive in the future (to say nothing of the continuation of our broken health care system).
This announcement moves in the opposite direction from which Obama himself identified as necessary during the Copenhagen Climate Summit last December. Drilling for more oil will not achieve the goal of reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations back down to 350ppm (the current value is 389.91ppm and increasing).
In the search for the mythical "Bipartisanship Grail", what do Obama, Democrats and climate activists get in return? Granted it's early in this specific case, but if the health insurance legislation's disastrous process demonstrated, I find it highly unlikely that the climate and energy legislation will garner the requisite 60 votes to pass the Senate. We're then faced with an unenviable situation again: Democrats have preemptively included Con proposals without extracting anything in return from them, especially votes when the time comes.
Most importantly to me, however, is the President's citation of "balance". He wants to "balance" our portfolio of clean energy and dirty energy in order to "move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy."
This is the point at which I make note of recent political developments. This kind of announcement, and the upcoming release of the Senate's climate and energy legislation, is exactly why I pushed so hard for the inclusion of a public option in the health insurance legislation that was just signed into law. A lot of folks were very concerned about the minutiae of the process as it related to those bills. One of the more commonly provided rationales for not including it was, "It can be done later." I was clear in my opposition to such a position because I believe it was and is a flawed strategy.
I know how dysfunctional the Senate is. I know what the supposed "political realities" of the day appear to be. Why did I oppose the chosen strategy? Because while it might work for health care one day, it will not work for climate and energy policy. Yes, there will be another day to push for a public option. There are no more days to push for the necessary climate and energy legislation. D.C. encompasses a political system that is slow and unresponsive to the needs of the people today.
The climate isn't a political system - it is a physical system. It responds to forces - some of which have already occurred, some of which we still have some control over - according to physical laws. The climate system does not care one wit how slow or fast the political system can act. It is progressing along its own time-table. The climate crisis cannot be averted by the same type of incrementalism proposed for real health care reform, they kind so favored by the insular political group in D.C.
Obama's Energy and Interior Departments have, for the most part, begun implementing good and necessary changes to our energy and climate policies. He has a very capable team of folks who I think do understand the severity of consequences that will occur if too little action is taken. This proposal and the degradation of the climate and energy legislation are leading me to now think otherwise. Just as Obama inserted his bully pulpit too late and with too little effort to ensure a larger step toward health care reform was accomplished, so too has the climate and energy discussion been left to fight nearly alone against a well-funded, entrenched array of dirty energy corporations and their allies.
What's needed are announcements of upgrading our antiquated electricity transmission grid. What's needed are announcements of viable mechanisms to accurately put a price on carbon - without which the industries of tomorrow are left in limbo; they're not making decisions on materials to buy or people to hire.
Cross-posted at WeatherDem - the blog. |
