Political Animal
Blog
Over at Grist, David Roberts has an interesting piece that argues the Solyndra brouhaha and general defensiveness have blinded Democrats to the strong public support, across party lines, for “clean energy” and government efforts to promote it. Citing both Stan Greenberg’s focus-group findings during the SOTU address, and more general polling data, Roberts suggests this could actually become a “wedge issue” for Democrats:
Americans know that clean energy is the future. They want to embrace the future. They want to, well, win it. They certainly don’t want to fend it off for the sake of oil companies. Americans hate oil companies! (Almost as much as they hate congressional Republicans.) They don’t want to subsidize oil companies any more. Even Republicans support ending oil subsidies by a 2-to-1 margin.
The underlying point I’d make about David’s argument is that people in politics, and especially Democrats, have long had an unfortunate tendency to avoid whole topics that they perceive as “enemy territory” or “the other party’s issues.” That may be happening with Democrats on energy and the environment right now. It’s true that some sub-issues in this area remain tough —there’s no question progressives have lost ground with the public on dealing with global climate change during the last few years, and will always have trouble with policy prescriptions that deliberately aim at raising energy prices.
But while it’s always appropriate to emphasize or de-emphasize this or that issue on strategic or tactical grounds at some particular moment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about an ideology or a political party that is unwilling to offer its own distinctive “take” on subjects the public cares about. David’s right there is a progressive opportunity on “clean energy” that ought to be fully exploited. Even if he was wrong, though, it’s a terrible habit to shut down thinking and talking about major national challenges just because “the other side” seems to have an advantage.
Facebook
Twitter
bdop4 on January 26, 2012 3:04 PM:
"Democrats, have long had an unfortunate tendency to avoid whole topics that they perceive as “enemy territory” or “the other party’s issues.” That may be happening with Democrats on energy and the environment right now."
You can add Single Payer Healthcare to that list. That Single Payer advocates didn't even get a seat at the table still rankles me.
CJ on January 26, 2012 3:12 PM:
"...it’s a terrible habit to shut down thinking and talking about major national challenges just because "the other side" seems to have an advantage."
Well said. Precisely!
I do give the GOP credit for taking unpopular issues and working for years, if not decades, to change public opinion to their favor: "activist" judges, right to privacy and Roe v. Wade, expanding drilling/natural gas/coal/nuclear energy, individual right to bear arms (it's not in the constitution), corporate personhood, anti-unions,... The list goes on and on. Sadly, the GOP has a pretty good batting average with such efforts. Too good.
Where are the Democratic leaders fighting against the notion that money equals speech, nuclear energy, activist judges on the right (court appointees should be an issue that Dems bring up in every election), ...?
low-tech cyclist on January 26, 2012 3:19 PM:
Even if he was wrong, though, it’s a terrible habit to shut down thinking and talking about major national challenges just because “the other side” seems to have an advantage.
I think the key phrase there is "major national challenges." It's OK to throw in the towel on gun control, because there are dozens of more important and pressing issues facing us right now. But it's not OK to shut up about climate change, unless we've stopped believing it's a big deal.
SecularAnimist on January 26, 2012 3:20 PM:
Ed Kilgore wrote: "... it’s a terrible habit to shut down thinking and talking about major national challenges just because 'the other side' seems to have an advantage ..."
And it's a worse habit to actually adopt the policy proposals of "the other side" -- like, for example, the 30-year-old Republican proposal for an "individual mandate" requiring all Americans to buy insurance from for-profit insurance corporations, which became the cornerstone of "ObamaCare" after single-payer, the public option, and Medicare expansion were all thrown under the bus.
And with regard to energy and climate, once again that's exactly what Obama appears to be doing with the massive expansion of fossil fuel extraction that his administration has presided over, and is going to even more aggressively pursue going forward, according to his SOTU address.
I thought I voted against the "Drill, Baby, Drill!" candidate in 2008.
T2 on January 26, 2012 3:25 PM:
I wonder if anyone heard Obama's remarks today in Colorado? He made a very strong statement about Natural Gas and the need to pull out all the stops to get as much as we can on US soil....safely, of course. Drill, baby, drill. At least its clean energy.
SteveT on January 26, 2012 3:29 PM:
I've said here many times that many Democrats' instinctive reaction to political pushback is to hide under their desks and soil themselves at the mere thought of a right-wing talking point being aimed in their direction.
Renewable energy should be an easy sell, even to the Low Information Voters.
Obama: "Three years ago, Germany set a goal of using 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. Well I say that America can get there first!"
LIVs: "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"
Obama: "And after we get there, we can sell our technology to Germany and to the rest of the world!
LIVs: "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"
SecularAnimist on January 26, 2012 3:38 PM:
T2 wrote: "... safely, of course. Drill, baby, drill. At least its clean energy."
Right.
And in early 2010, when Obama announced the largest expansion of offshore oil drilling in US history, he also proclaimed that it would be done "safely, of course".
That was two weeks before the BP blowout in the Gulf.
Natural gas is NOT "clean energy". Natural gas extracted with hydro-fracking is most especially NOT "clean energy".
I don't think Obama has any fear of the right wing's talking points on this -- he has simply adopted them as his own.
c u n d gulag on January 26, 2012 3:41 PM:
After Solyndra doesn't pan out, I wonder what they will try to find next?
They need to find some new version of "Whitewater" soon, to fling poo on.
askew on January 26, 2012 3:45 PM:
Huh? What are you talking about? Obama spent significant time during the SOTU talking up clean energy and government funding of it. The Obama administration has been touting those two items for years now and in no way slacked off due to the Solyndra issue. Hell, just look at Obama's schedule for the past 6 months. He's been routinely speaking about the economy at companies that work in clean energy that benefited from government investment.
This whole piece is just tone-deaf and completely fact-free. Not a good start for Ed here. Not at all.
lou on January 26, 2012 3:51 PM:
We may not be conceding to the other side as much as we are being hamstrung by a technocratic system which does not allow for a fair hearing of all the costs, present and future, associated with various energy sources and technologies. This essentially forces both sides to defend the same goal, which in these troubled economic times, means maintaining the status quo.
Until we begin to seriously question GDP as a real measure of economic health we'll keep on the side of the GOP and let the system dictate the outcome. In the end we all lose for we have no vision of alternative ends.
schtick on January 26, 2012 3:59 PM:
Gas is clean energy? Bullshit. It's as clean as "clean" coal. It doesn't exist. Just like "safely drilling offshore" or anywhere else for that matter.
jjm on January 26, 2012 4:03 PM:
I don't quite get the Democrat-Obama bashing going on here. What other president has convinced the auto industry and his administration to adopt a 54 mpg standard by a few years from now? Seriously!
I live in California where zero emissions vehicles, low emissions ones PROUDLY sport these labels on their cars. People want this; the Koch Brothers don't and they have paid zillions to try to convince us that people DON"T.
Obama has lured that cat out of the bag. I say good for him.
PS glad to see @c u n d gulag is back commenting. Often good for some big laughs.
Mimikatz on January 26, 2012 4:08 PM:
Same is true about energy efficiency. Smart consumers appreciate more efficient lightbulbs, even CFLs, and appliances. Companies appreciate any assistance in lowering energy costs. Only ideologues and throwbacks think the old incandescent light bulb is an heirloom. Gov't can bea real help here.
Jimo on January 26, 2012 4:13 PM:
One key aspect of the Solyndra issue is to remember: this type of gov't investment in specific companies is only necessary because the GOP blocks mechanisms that end subsidies for carbon fuels (and nuclear) and allows "green" energy sources to compete on a level **market** playing field.
By the term subsidies, I don't mean merely the egregious tax credits and such that are available to the Exxons of the industry but also the very right to pollute itself, the cost of a vast military machine to police places like the Straits of Hormuz, the undefinable cost of environmental and species destruction that are inseparable from carbon energy use.
The day that the "equalization tax" on gasoline is $10 per gallon is the day that non-carbon energy can finally be allowed to compete.
SecularAnimist on January 26, 2012 4:26 PM:
askew wrote: "Obama spent significant time during the SOTU talking up clean energy and government funding of it."
Almost all of the time that Obama spent during the SOTU talking about energy was devoted to expanding natural gas and offshore oil extraction. Indeed, he boasted about the massive expansion of domestic fossil fuel extraction that has already occurred under his administration.
He talked about gas, coal and nuclear power as "clean" energy sources, and the White House summary actually referred to gas, coal and nuclear as "renewable energy" sources, which is nonsense.
Obama only mentioned wind and solar ONCE, when he said he would not "cede" those industries to China. He only mentioned "public investments" in wind and solar ONCE, in the context of admitting that some of these investments "don't pan out" or "fail".
And perhaps most importantly Obama only mentioned climate change ONCE -- when he dismissed any chance of passing a "comprehensive plan" to deal with it.
massappeal on January 26, 2012 5:06 PM:
A possible topic for a future post: Obama's relative steadfastness on issues, and how it's a (hidden?) source of his political strength.
IIRC, the major planks of his domestic policy agenda in 2008 were health care, education, and the economic crisis. The major planks of his foreign policy agenda were ending the Iraq War, refocusing on Afghanistan, attacking al-Qaeda, and rebuilding alliances.
The Recovery Act stopped the Great Recession; the Affordable Care Act put universal health care coverage within reach; Race To The Top drove elementary and secondary education reform, while the ACA included major student loan reform. Cap and trade legislation was blocked in the Senate by Republican filibuster, but other reforms (e.g., higher efficiency standards for cars and appliances) are moving forward.
All of which helps Obama take the position he did in the State of the Union address: here's the situation I inherited, here's what I said I would do, here's what I've done, here's what I want to do next. The guy's not perfect---and I've got plenty of issues I can criticize him on---but he's pretty darn good.
Peter Pitchford on January 26, 2012 5:51 PM:
Natural Gas is not clean. It requires taking billions, even trillions of gallons of water, poisoning it, and injecting it deep underground. Even if it never comes up and never contaminates drinking water, the fact remains that an enormous amount of clean fresh water is being permanently poisoned and forever removed from the ecosystem. To call that "clean" is an insult to both the American public and the English language. The modus operandi of the gas industry has been to promise the sky without mentioning the reality and hope no one notices the reality before the addiction sets in.
PEA on January 26, 2012 7:12 PM:
Agree with SecularAnimist et al that the admin tends to embrace wrong-headed energy policy and not fight strongly enough for liberal policies in general (energy as well as health, financial, etc). While O may be talking to business about clean energy, he needs to refrain from Republican talking points (duh) in his own SOTU and other speeches, and the admin needs to explain to the PEOPLE why clean sustainable energy is critical if we are to survive. Not lecture, a la Al Gore, but he is not using his pulpet effectively!!! Any old folks recall how people supported the space program because of Sputnik? Well, dealing iwth climate change and energy problems is a lot more important. Or don't we care that half of FL will be underwater one day? (etc ) Liberals need to put pressure on the admin to pay more attention to science and less to their wall street and business friends. I'm willing to allow some fluffy, centrist election-year language, but when I believe O is going to implement stupid policies, I am very frustrated.
Doug on January 26, 2012 9:12 PM:
SecularAnimist et al, so, we're going to shut down the country while a switch-over to "clean" renewable energy takes place? Or hadn't you thought about THAT?
Coal will never be a "clean" source of energy, but it CAN be a lot less dirty than at present by using scrubbers and low-sulfur anthracite. That won't stop the production of pollutants/CO2, but it WILL slow it down while actual "clean" energy sources are developed and put into place.
As for "safely drilling offshore", much depends on the enforcement of present regulations and inspections of the platforms when they're in operation, the failure of both were the major cause in the BP disaster. The Federal government call "sell" all the options oil companies wish to buy, but it won't provide one cent to those companies' bottom lines IF they don't/can't actually extract any oil because of failing to meet the required standards. And while the oil companies AREN'T drilling, they're NOT polluting.
Switching this country over to actual renewable energy is a long-haul proposition because the ONLY way it's going to get done is by engaging the market. Only when the costs of producing and USING clean, renewable energy is close to that of oil or coal will enough momentum build up to tip the economy over into a "post-petroleum" age.
The first steps are going to have to be via tax credits/allowances on installing/using clean energy sources or by fines or fees for NOT using using them. Tax credits for purchasing hybrid/electric vehicles are an excellent example and should be followed in other areas.
I'm still on the fence concerning increased nuclear power because of the costs and difficulties in storing nuclear "waste". It may very well be that increasing the number of nuclear power plants could be a partial and short-term solution to our increased energy needs and help reduce our reliance on coal/oil/natural gas power plants while moving to actual clean and renewable power sources.
The biggest problem with electricity, no matter how it's generated, is getting it from the place of production to where it's used. Solar and wind power-produced electricity have the drawbacks of relying on sunshine and the wind. What happens when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing hard enough to turn the vanes? Battery storage COULD be an answer, but it produces about as many problems as it solves.
At present, the main problem with an all-electric vehicle is its short driving time before it has to be re-charged. The same would apply to batteries used for homes or businesses; what good would be to have a basement full of batteries, assuming you even HAVE a basement, if, on their use, they need to be re-charged almost immediately?
Te incredible toxicity of the elements used in modern batteries, ranking right up there with nuclear waste, would mean that any increase in size and use would also mean an increase in the need for proper disposal of those batteries to prevent the dangerous elements from leaching into the soil (and drinking water supplies).
As I said, it's going to be a long-haul effort...