If all Americans were staying at one hotel for the rest of our lives and that hotel only had a certain amount of soap bars, would you be in favor of starting a soap bar trading operation, where people could barter amongst themselves for the potentially-cleaner-yet-still-used bars until they were gone, or would you propose the idea of everybody chipping in to buy a soap maker and supplies that would keep you clean long after the original count of soap bars was scrubbed into nonexistence?
Now, I realize the analogy isn’t perfect (i.e., where would this endless supply of soap-making materials come from?), but essentially, I think this is similar to the choice we face with the future of the energy economy in this country. Will we continue to excuse the heavy pollution caused by large corporations, including the ones that currently supply us with our electricity and transportation means, or will we demand for them and for ourselves that we would prefer to make a fundamental shift towards a lasting clean energy system?
The seemingly simple decision outlined above is the kind of discussion that idealists banter blissfully about before the politicians, private interests, and economists butt in, uninvited, and let out a big, stinking fart of cynicism that makes everybody say, “Come on, really?!”
In all honesty though, I was pleased last week to read of President Obama acknowledging the possibility of an energy-only bill making its way through Congress this year. That is, an energy bill that omits a proposed cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, the President remarked, “We may be able to separate these things out, and it’s conceivable that that’s where the Senate ends up.”
But what would an energy bill look like without the cap program? Sources say it would mean a bill that would provide subsidies and tax credits to green innovators, eliminate subsidies for oil companies and promote increased capacity for “green jobs” training programs.
To me, and I’m sure many other taxpayers, this is great news. Here’s my top three list of reasons why an energy-only bill might be the best thing that could happen on the climate and energy front this year.
• An energy-only bill could actually pass. These days, as legislation moves through Washington about as fast as dripping molasses, anything to get the ball rolling towards energy independence should be pursued. Any sort of renewable electricity standard that would say a certain percentage of electricity must come from renewable sources by a certain deadline would spur industry growth while lessening the demand for fossil fuels.
• Next, a system that rewards rather than punishes is proactive, not reactive. Psychologists now say to remind yourself of things, rather than say “Don’t forget to…” because, how can you not do something? The same goes for clean energy: If we don’t fund and build it actively by incentivizing the innovators, the status quo will continue.
No one can deny (and if you can, I’d like to hear it) that energy independence, or at least working toward it, would do nothing but good in a time when new oil field discoveries have peaked and the dirtiness of fossil fuels is common knowledge.
• Plus, more subsidies for renewable energy could do what it did for fossil fuels — make it commercially viable and then let the consumers decide what kind of energy they prefer.
Dually, here’s my top three reasons why leaving out the cap-and-trade aspect would be good news for the people.
• First, cap-and-trade does not solve climate change anyway. The levels of reduction are not significant enough to avert the drastic changes climate change will cause to earth systems. Why there is not an overflow of political and social willpower to do whatever it takes right now is a whole other onion entirely.
Like one blogger rightly stated, it’s not “American Warming” that we’re dealing with, and whatever fossil fuels we don’t burn here will be quickly coughed into the Eastern Hemisphere air from the rapidly growing nations there. A cap that’s 10 to 20 percent below 2005 or even 1990 levels doesn’t fundamentally change anything about how energy is produced in this country, which is the real problem.
• Secondly, advocates of a carbon market like it because of the supposed “polluter pays” aspect, but these costs are not necessarily absorbed by the companies themselves; rather, they could conveniently be passed on to the taxpaying consumers. This situation could provide potential windfall profits to utilities companies for selling their extra “allowances” without passing the help along to customers in price cuts.
• Finally, how will it be decided who gets the most emissions allowances? When considering any bureaucratic action in this country, one has to acknowledge the ever-present lobbying industry. Some loud lobbyist with a fat checkbook could make the difference and it would be naïve to deny it.
Well, there you have it folks. In the terms of my admittedly mediocre analogy, should we stay dirty or buy a soap maker? The choice doesn’t have to be so complicated after all. Let’s get that energy-only bill on the table and go from there.
[email protected]
More soap: a shift to clean energy
Daily Emerald
February 14, 2010
0
More to Discover