Energy politics: Nothing up their sleeves

In the summer of 1970, between my sophomore and junior years of high school in Richmond, Virginia, a federal court ruled that the city’s school system had to be integrated. This became known as “forced busing,” which meant, of course, “forced busing, but this time of whites”. For years afterwards, politicians in central Virginia were expected to denounce forced busing but not to actually do anything.

One political commentator remarked on this type of stance as a particularly Southern type of political dishonesty, a meaningless posturing for votes. This behavior certainly seems to be typical of energy policy politics these days, when politicians not only duck tough issues, but avoid them through sleight of hand. Mantras like “jobs” or “drill, baby, drill” are tossed out, but at best simplistic references to more complex issues. How much to spend for jobs? Which are good, which bad? Solar panel installation jobs good, oil drilling jobs bad, coal mining jobs worst–except no one would ever say that. Would you drill anywhere? The White House lawn?

Indeed, coal is the best example of how politicians divert voter attention from a real issue. I’ve already noted that the US coal is suffering because of the realities of the market place and especially cheap natural gas, although Obama often gets blamed. But even the Democrats do no more than say they are not opposed to coal, because they want to support coal miners as if they would develop some kind of coal mining ditch digging program—pay half the miners to dig up coal, the other half to rebury it. Bernie Sanders, for example, attacks coal pollution and coal industry subsidies, but after an hour of searching, I can’t find any mention of lost coal jobs or policies to deal with them.

Nuclear is another, slightly different example, where most candidates, especially Republicans, support more development of nuclear power without actually proposing to do anything to accomplish that. The first issue that candidates should address is the long-overdue development of a long-term nuclear waste disposal site, but few want to discuss it because it always arouses opposition from locals. And as with coal, nuclear’s biggest problem is technical or political but economic: it’s hard to compete with cheap natural gas. Support for nuclear rarely translates into anything more than moral support.

Nimby is the great boogeyman to many politicians. Aside from the nuclear waste disposal site, opposition to offshore drilling has seen even Republicans cave in, such as Jeb Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Oddly, President Obama has been more supportive of the US offshore drilling industry than many Republicans, regulating it more strictly after the Macondo disaster, but not permitting Shell to proceed offshore Alaska, despite ardent opposition from environmentalists and lilberals.

The treatment of fracking is an incredible exception to this rule. Not surprisingly, Republicans are in favor of energy development, but the number of Democrats who support fracking is astonishing. (Yes, they call for regulation of the practice, but they want to regulate everything, so that’s hardly a shock.) Governors Jerry Brown and John Hickenlooper have both sought to encourage the practice, seeking compromise between the industry and environmental groups in response to legitimate concerns. Hilary Clinton has suggested gas is the bridge to a clean energy future, and Bernie Sanders has sought transparency in the use of chemicals, but I can’t find any statements opposing the practice itself.

Historians often remind us that our political debate has often been not just acrimonious but dishonest, childish, and vicious. Yet the days when an Abraham Lincoln could generate support with a long, impassioned, intelligent speech seem to be behind us. Candidates trot out talking points, slogans, and happy talk, but seem afraid of suggesting something that might be opposed by some interest group or segment of the public or, the ultimate failure, get them labelled as boring. True, a president’s job is to lead, not design detailed policy or legislation, but the big issues are simply not be addressed and this can hardly move the country forward.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2015/08/02/energy-politics-nothing-up-their-sleeves/?ss=energy