The long-running battle over a major energy reform bill is stalled by mid-term Congressional political calculations. But the reality may be much worse. There’s some talk coming from inside the Beltway that meaningful energy reform may have become such a divisive topic that it soon may join Social Security and Medicare reform as an untouchable “third rail” issue.
That’s too bad. For a country that’s lacked any coherent energy policy for far too long, further delay is a costly lost opportunity.
Certainly there are valid concerns about the complex bill passed by the Democrat-controlled House. The specter of “energy police” coming into your home to conduct a government-mandated energy audit that may result in costly repairs is never going to be popular, even if it is an efficient way to reach a desirable goal. And there’s room to debate whether the threshold for retrofit subsidies is too low.
If one believes the rash of press releases and “independent” studies being turned out by the oil and gas lobbies, the sky is about to fall on the U.S. economy with hundreds of thousands of jobs lost if Congress passes corporate tax changes that take a nibble out of the profits of the energy giants.
Conversely, if one believes the alternative energy industry’s PR machine, all hope will be lost unless massive subsidies are forthcoming immediately.
And there are enough questions about the mechanics of cap-and-trade and mandating that a certain percentage of energy generation comes from alternative sources to justify going slowly.
The devil is in the details and Connecticut’s Sen. Joe Lieberman is right in the thick of the conversation, trying to separate truth from hyperbole.
This really isn’t a matter of political opinion or party dogma. The simple truth here is that doing nothing is no longer an option.
When we look beyond all the wonkish detail, we see a classic dog fight between old energy and new energy.
There can be little argument that this nation is too reliant on fossil fuel, that the world’s supply is controlled by interests hostile to the U.S. and that that well is running dry. Some estimates put the end date at about 40 years; others say the party can continue longer through improved technology.
Americans like to resist change as long as possible and energy is no exception. But this seems one place where we need to break our pattern and act now to minimalize disruptions.
Sure, the middle of the Great Recession is a lousy time to talk about adding cost to anything. But history tells us that fundamental change works best with a carrot and a stick, often applied together through government policy.
Here, the concept of facilitating a shift toward alternative energy is attractive. We don’t favor grand subsidies for an industry that has yet to show it can compete efficiently and effectively. But we do favor weaning ourselves from subsidies for the oil and gas industry that are masking the true cost of energy.
There’s plenty of room to debate whether the target for energy generation from alternative sources should be 20 percent by 2020 as the House approved or some other number. The important step is in setting out on the road. We can adjust the speed of the journey later as the economy allows.
By omitting any standard, we make no progress.
Similarly, some disincentive for continuing fossil fuel business as usual seems necessary. Cap-and-trade holds promise. Again, the important step is the first one and it should be a carefully measured step that starts us on the journey yet minimizes further damage to a fragile economy.
It’s not easy finding a workable course through this public policy thicket. But then nobody said governing would be easy. Doing nothing is the easy road. It’s just not a road we can afford to travel any longer.
It’s time for bright people from both sides of the Congressional aisle to come together and hammer out a coherent plan that will serve us well for the next generation. Anything less is a failure.
