Greens entered the summer thinking they could count on a Democratic majority in two houses to pass serious global warming legislation. Three months later they are in a period of reckoning that they seem only now to be awakening to.
by Adam Solomon Zemel
The energy debates over the summer, coupled with the current presidential election campaign, have shifted the political landscape in America remarkably. Just three months ago, the democratic leadership was firmly in the green camp when it came to offshore drilling.
On July 10th an article from TheHill.com led:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday shut the door on expanding oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration..."
In fact, things were looking bright for greens, who felt confident in their ability to move new climate legislation--the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act--through both houses of congress due to a democratic party that had finally warmed up to taking action on global warming. The summer of 2008 looked like it might finally be the era greens had been waiting for.
But things started going downhill on the first Friday of June when L-W failed to even get cloture and make it past debates. Gas prices were already starting their climb to the far side of four dollars, and it was clear to Dems that if they didn't want to be ousted in November, they couldn't enact legislation that would raise gas (and electricity and heating) prices even further.
In fact, proposing to raise energy prices was the opposite of good politics, and Republicans jumped on this opportunity to beat their opponents on drilling. Just ten days after the Friday defeat of L-W, John McCain reversed his position on offshore drilling, joining many in his party and saying he would encourage states to explore their offshore oil reserves with new incentives. And then, on June 19th, just thirty days after it had launched, Newt Gingrich's "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," petition had more than a million signatures. It was clear that increased drilling had garnered significant public support, and Republicans were reaping all the benefits and political capital.
Democrats had to respond, and the beginning of August saw Dems from Obama on down reversed on drilling, saying they would be pro-drilling if it were part of a larger energy policy that addressed America's energy crises in an expansive way. And an August 11th article from TheHill began:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday night dropped her staunch opposition to a vote on offshore oil drilling in the House."
Just to be clear, less than five weeks had passed since the article quoted above. But gas prices were soaring, and Dems needed to respond to voters' concerns. Too little, too late. Despite the common sense of the party's reversal, it remains clear to the public that the Republicans have leadership if not ownership of the drilling issue.
Take a moment to consider that, before August, it was inconceivable that democrats would introduce an energy bill that includes expanded domestic drilling. Consider that, before the summer, greens believed they could count on Democrats to enact legislation that would make energy prices higher. Consider that, as of July 31st, a majority of Californians --Californians--support measures to expand offshore drilling. This is all evidence of the monumental political earthquake that we witnessed over the summer, a political throw down over which party represented voters' energy interests --and Dems and greens got beat.
Dems not only got beat, they got beat twice. They lost big politically by pitting the production and investment tax credits against offshore drilling, and they lost again when they couldn't pass an extension of these crucial tax credits all summer. By not standing for something big, like massive investments in making clean energy cheap, and instead focusing on the itc/ptc extension, they guaranteed a political defeat. They could have proposed to finance this landmark investment with money from leasing offshore oil reserves to oil companies, but they couldn't because of their ties to inflexible green groups.
And where do greens and Dems stand now? House Democrats are planning to introduce "all of the above" energy policy onto the floor of Congress in an all too late, all too transparent attempt to take ownership of the energy issue. And greens need to take time to really think about where they stand and how to rebuild their political capital and their legitimacy with voters. Their emphasis can't be on raising energy prices through market fundamentalist policies like cap and trade. The higher enviros try to push gas and electricity prices, the lower their legitimacy will be in the eyes of voters--and this is a lesson that is only now being learned by the big greens. The NRDC and Sierra Club recently contributed to a report calling for a 2 year, 100 billion dollar investment in clean energy industries to jumpstart the transition to clean energy economy, and that was a start. But it was only a start, and if these sorts of shifts in solution proposals don't continue, it could be the end of green influence in Washington.
Could it also be that the public simply doesn't accept there is a problem? My reading of the history of other energy source transitions is that folks are typically dragged kicking and screaming from the old to the new (e.g., England was almost out of trees when coal became dominant for the Industrial Revolution, petroleum was abetted by the increasing scarcity of whales for lamp oil, etc.). It would be nice to think that the public will not wait until the bitter end this time...
Posted by: R Margolis at September 13, 2008 1:09 AM