A Popular Argument, but NOT a Sustainable One

Obama’s speech touches on several of the important energy issues that we have discussed in light of responding to climate change. However, he is framing his changes in energy policy in terms of immediate political security, and not the long term environmental security that many concerned about climate change would be hoping to hear.

The immediate response to reading any coverage of the speech from an environmental advocate is extreme disappointment at the limited commitments the administration is taking. Before reading the speech, I had seen a number of news articles with headlines concerning Obama cutting foreign oil by 1/3 in 15 years. My immediate reaction was that this commitment is very underwhelming. While it may seem like a practical commitment in the light of recent concerns over foreign oil and looking at the reality of America’s addiction, this is not what is needed with the environmental concerns of climate change looming or already affecting us. From a security perspective, Obama is quite right that the United States should cut down on foreign oil, but this commitment must come along side overall oil consumption cuts.

Despite this less than encouraging start, it is refreshing that Obama does realize the reality of the situation ahead. He discusses the rising consumption of countries like China and India meaning that there is not going to be long-term declines in the price of oil. Similarly, he acknowledges there will be no quick fixes to the current energy situation.

Where Obama misses the mark, other than his focus on cutting only foreign oil, are some of his alternatives. The first two alternatives he discusses, natural gas and biofuels, are not sustainable either. While they most likely have a role in our future, he discusses them as the solution rather than means to steady the ship while we develop better alternatives. The attention he pays to efficiency is a solution worth noting. In both transportation and electricity, improving efficiency are probably the most attainable and cost-effective solutions we have. Still, Obama brushed off the long-term concerns for the environment in favor of protecting national security and the wallets of Americans; a popular strategy, but probably not a sustainable one.

Subsidies for our Future, Not Oil

It is surprising to see some of the stances of environmental groups concerning these subsidies. The leaders of the Global Environmental Fund and Earth Track both stand against subsidies in all their forms. From Douglas Koplow, founder of Earth Track, comes the opinion that “the country is better off on having a neutral playing field for all forms of energy.” These two organizations seem to be holding onto the market liberal idea of environmentalism that people will switch to more environmentally friendly energy sources when they are on a level playing field and shown to be more cost-effective. I do not have the same rosy view of this situation. “Green” energy is substantially far behind in terms of technology, earning power, and influence from the fossil fuel companies. Even without subsidies, these fossil fuel corporations would still hold a substantial advantage. Further, I am surprised by the laid back approach of the environment groups presented in this article. While I do not necessarily buy the Bill McKibben end is imminent approach, allowing the market (without subsidies) to decide to shift toward more environmentally sustainable energy sources is leaving things too late.

I stand by the opinions Michael Levi who sees the need to support the new energy technologies from the dominance of fossil fuels. Subsidies in their present format do not work to this end. They should be scraped as they presently exist.

However, rather than aiding the “green” technology sector against the fossil fuel companies, subsidies should be offered to integrate these two groups. I am not supportive of the profit-mongering executives at Exxon and the like, but pragmatically, these companies have the greatest potential to develop green technology. Subsidies and tax breaks should exist to promote oil and other fossil fuel companies toward innovating and developing new “green” energy. These companies have capital to burn, and as fossil fuels begin to dry up and people begin become more inclined to use renewable energy, these companies have the most to gain from cornering these emerging markets.

Energy is energy, and profit is profit, so giving incentives to Chevron and Exxon to develop the future wind turbines and solar panels will ensure that we have energy and they have profit.