American energy (image by: KB35)

As oil prices continue to spike with the unrest in the Middle East, consumer anger has inevitably increased along with it – and so has the political rhetoric.

Though it was intended to create calm, Obama’s speech outlining his “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” on Wednesday at Georgetown University added more anger, from both environmental and business leaders alike. Environmental groups are upset that Obama supports nuclear energy, even after the Japan nuclear disaster, as well as offshore drilling, oil from Canada’s tar sands, and gas from domestic shale reserves. They are also upset that he did not address Republican attempts to “rein in” greenhouse gas rules by the Environmental Protection Agency. Business leaders, on the other hand, accuse Obama of cutting domestic production short and increasing costs.

Despite the heated debate, however, much of what Obama said in his announcement of his national goal to cut oil imports by one-third by 2025 was an affirmation of earlier statements, such as his ongoing support for renewable energy sources and investments in clean energy technology. More ominously, it also included a reference to the now discarded cap-and-trade bill.

While Obama’s support for nuclear energy and for offshore and domestic drilling are also not new, they highlight the tradeoffs between nuclear safety and low emissions, and between drilling safety and domestic energy security. These tradeoffs point to the political difficulties Obama might have in achieving his plan. With the devastating impacts from the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster, as well as those from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, uppermost in the public’s mind, Americans are currently more likely to support nuclear safety over low emissions, and drilling safety over domestic energy security. Yet in his speech, Obama nodded toward these concerns with a mention of his request for a safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as of his implementation of strict new deepwater drilling regulations since the BP accident.

Obama’s commitment to the Canadian oil sands – seen by some as reliable, compared to Middle Eastern sources of oil – is also not new. Liz Barratt-Brown at the Natural Resources Defense Council pointed out that in this speech, he never agreed to increase oil sands production, despite Canadian media reports suggesting otherwise. Rather, he stated that imports from various countries would be a necessary part of the mix until alternative energies are fully in place.

Perhaps the reaffirmation of existing policies or platforms, rather than the introduction of new ones, is a good thing for the “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.” Luke Tonachel of the NRDC argues that better cars, increased efficiency and alternative fuels can meet Obama’s goal of cutting one-third of imports by 2025 without new drilling, and the New York Times explains how tools such as biofuels and more fuel-efficient cars were used effectively to advance energy security 30 years ago – and can be used again.

In his announcement, Obama ackowledged that ongoing attempts to secure America’s energy future have been made by U.S. presidents since the first oil crisis in the 1970s, yet have so far remained unsuccessful. It remains to be seen, however, whether the policy trade-offs, political differences and opposition can be addressed well-enough to implement it this time around – with the stakes that much higher.

3-D US Electoral Map (Image by: Alexander O'Neill)

Article By Guest Contributor: Lynann Butkiewicz

As Congress convenes in the weeks before the mid-term elections, there is likely to be one final push for a comprehensive energy bill, although the chances of it passing are slim. Congress will be looking to pass top priority legislation addressing the key issues concerning the American public including job growth and an increase in credit for small businesses. Politicians will shy away from highly politicized issues, such as climate change, and vote for legislation that will rally the base.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would like to push for the new energy bill vote in the Senate before the elections, but he also told reporters he would allow a vote on blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from curbing carbon emissions sometime after the elections this year.

Environmentalists had hoped that if the energy bill does not pass in Congress then the EPA could be a last resort in order to cut back on carbon emissions. An expected Republican majority in Congress after the elections would not only vote down the energy bill but also likely pass the vote on limiting the EPA. A Wonk Room survey reported this week that only one of the 37 Republican candidates up for Senate seats this year believe that climate change is manmade. With winds shifting the nation toward a Republican majority, the prospect of passing comprehensive climate legislation is doubtful.

The proposed Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act is significantly different to the last failed energy bill. In the 2009 bill, that was passed in the House of Representatives and killed in the Senate, there was a measure to price carbon, indicating the potential for a US national carbon market. The 2009 legislation barely passed, including 44 Democrats rejecting the bill.

This new proposed bill does not address pricing carbon, leaving open the question of if and when cap and trade will become a reality in the US and whether this energy bill will make a significant impact on climate change regulation in the lead-up to the negotiations in Cancun in November. If Democrats cannot pass comprehensive climate legislation with a majority in Congress before the elections, then the chances of having a national carbon market and clear carbon mitigation target are doubtful for the next several years.

Instead, this bill includes a Home Star rebate system in order to encourage consumers to purchase energy efficient upgrades, similar to the debated Cash for Clunkers scheme introduced in 2009. It also includes a measure for BP to pay for the damages caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The recession has put the brakes on carbon trading expansion worldwide, and the US is no exception. Opponents claim that new energy taxes will stifle job growth in the private sector and force the US to rely more on foreign oil, exactly the type of legislation the Democratic Congress is looking to avoid in an election year.

As former Bill Clinton strategist James Carville said in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

If the Democratic-majority Congress wants to succeed in passing climate legislation before the anticipated Republican majority takes over, it needs to be framed toward economic recovery.

The very title of the “Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act,” indicates that the bill will stimulate job growth and add accountability for BP’s role in the Gulf oil spill. Democrats will try to highlight this when lobbying for support of the bill before the elections, but Republicans are not looking for votes that will frame Congress as making progress. Instead, a tactic could be to make the Democratic-majority Congress look as if it is not getting legislation passed, encouraging voters to make a change in the establishment at the polls.

The Republican strategy up until the elections seems to be based on passing legislation in the House of Representatives and then killing it in the Senate, which was the fate of the last climate bill. If this continues to happen through to November, and Republicans sweep Congress, then climate legislation may not only be impossible for 2010, but also for the next several years.

As of July 22^nd , the second effort to enact a Climate Change bill in this congress failed. Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid announced that the ‘We know that we don’t have the votes’ for a comprehensive reform. Instead, the focus will be on a slimmer package focusing on household efficiency and the gulf oil spill.

Continue reading…

 From a party not known for a forward stance against Climate Change legislation and with many members downright sceptical, perhaps we should be positive when Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) visited Saskatchewan last week and declared himself a believer, that Climate Change was a “reality”. The interview, worth reading in full, brings to light some of the thinking of Republicans on Climate Change and the North American energy market.

Senator’s Graham’s views are particularly important for several reasons. Firstly the Climate change bill that passed through the US house and is awaiting its senate hearing is possibly the single most important turning point in getting a global deal on Climate Change. As Graham himself noted, the bill narrowly passed in the house meaning that it dropped Democrats, given the house is often seen as more partisan, the implication is that the bill would need to be watered down to make a passage through the Senate. While this may be true to some extent, Graham is being slightly disingenuous, the House bill passed with enough votes – some Democrats were able to vote against it for their constituency, safe in the knowledge it would pass (i.e. if it had been closer they would probably have also voted for it).

Senator Graham’s views were likewise interesting in terms of the shape of Climate legislation in North America, which can probably be read as a reasonable gauge of Republican thinking on energy policy if not Climate Change policy.

“Carbon sequestration is the key to anything you want to do when you talk about getting away from fossil fuels or controlling CO2 emissions”

Not that this will surprise many, but CCS ( Carbon Capture and Storage) is in the near future at least a political reality– whether its viable or not. For both Canada and the US, CCS is the magic wand which can placate their powerful fossil fuel lobbies – especially Coal in the US and the oil-sands in Canada. Both Obama and Harper have alluded to its necessary use – and with many Democrats hailing from coal states such as West Virginia and Virginia, it will be next to impossible for Climate Change legislation to be passed without it. Similarly in Canada, the powerful geopolitical role envisaged from Alberta’s oil sands including in any North American Cap and Trade, ensures that both countries will create opt outs or subsidies to nurture their particular fossil fuel industries.

On Oil Sands Senator Graham words will disappoint environmentalists:

“the United States should accept it, because every drop of oil that we can receive from our friends in Canada is one less we have to buy from people who don’t like us.”

“I think the future’s on your side when it comes to your U.S. neighbours accepting your products.”

Almost without a doubt, there is a necessary trade-off to be made in environmental issues. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) may be a “believer” in Climate Change, but his language was firmly rooted in pragmatic security and economic issues- cheap and safe energy – if Congress does swing back towards Republicans, future Climate Change debates will be shaped by this kind of language. This isn’t necessarily negative, in order to make Climate Change a permanent legislative priority it needs to be bundled into other issues, to appeal to wide base. In this case, the issue is energy security, while for many this was meant to be about fuel economy standards, reduction in oil for power stations and growth of new green energy industries – yet in the interim this will mean oil sands from Alberta. The battle for environmentalists will be to try to lobby for the clean- up of the Alberta sands and the US coal.

Rendering of US city under water – by TERRA-Dreams (SoftPIX_Techie)

According to a recent Gallup Poll, an increasing number of Americans believe that the threat of global warming is exaggerated. In the 2009 poll, Gallup surveyed 1012 adults by fixed and mobile phone. The results found that forty-one percent of Americans doubted the severity of global warming as reported by the mainstream media. In addition, the environmental poll found a record-breaking 16 percent of Americans reported that they believed the effects of global warming will never occur.

Gallup Analyst Lydia Saad comments that, “Americans generally believe global warming is real (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue.”

Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues to be concerned about in the poll. Of highest concern to Americans surveyed was the pollution of drinking water – pulling in 84 percent of the votes. While Americans tend to believe that global warming is real, only 34% surveyed felt that they worry “a great deal” about the issue.

The annual environmental poll shows this drop in public concern across several measures. Global warming not only ranks last among the percentage of Americans concerned either a “great deal” or a “fair amount”, global warming is the only issue to have seen a significant decrease in public concern over the past year.

What could have caused such an increase in global warming doubters?

Global warming has received a great deal of attention this past decade due to debates regarding the Kyoto Protocol and former Vice President Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. However, in this past year, the global warming message may have lost some of its ground with Americans. Given the economic downturn, it is possible that some of the public concern for global warming has turned toward pressing economic issues. Additionally, other factors may also be contributing to the dampening of the global warming message.

The recent elections in the United States could have had some effect on issue. The number of Republicans to believe that global warming media coverage is exaggerated has continuously increased since 1997. However, the 2009 environmental poll also reveals an increase in independent voters agreeing with the Republicans doubters.

Heightened politicization of issues leading up to the elections – including the concern over global warming – may have altered American beliefs on the subject. Additionally, an abundant number of debates over drilling in Alaska, renewable energy and the necessity for climate change legislation may have increased public fatigue over topics related to global warming. Therefore, next year’s survey will be of further importance to determine whether the increased number of global warming doubters in America is a reaction to unique circumstances or a trend that will continue into the future.