The Chamber of Commerce has a new blogger, and his first post is about how How Environmental group's lawsuits will raise the price of energy.
Let me start by acknowledging his point - the lawsuits will make it more difficult to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. And, he's right in saying that, too often, groups like the Sierra Club, the Gulf Restoration Network, and the Florida Wildlife Federation are interested in delaying and raising the price of drilling projects. I would question his assertion that these actions will raise energy costs, but that is for another post.
However, I would think his post should include some sort of an acknowledgement that the environmental groups might have a point. I'm not sure if he missed the story - it was only on the cover of every newspaper for 6 months - BP's drilling in exactly this area cost over $20 billion in clean-up costs, untold damage to the Gulf's ecosystems, and - in case we forget - 11 lives. It seems like some acknowledgement that America's energy policy should take environmental sustainability as well as economic issues into account is in order.
He seems to be saying that creating jobs now is more important than any environmental damage down the road. That is a dramatic assertion, if that is what the Chamber thinks. We cannot have a debate when both sides talk past each other - the Chamber should engage the enviros on their turf, and they should engage back by asserting how the long-term costs are higher than any short-term gain. We need a debate on energy in this country that acknowledges all sides.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The Country Deserves A Real Debate on Climate and Energy Policy
Last week, I noted on twitter that Governor Romney said that "the world is getting warmer". This should not be a controversial statement. It is unequivocally getting warmer.
I see now that he has been getting some serious push-back from the right wing of the party. This Washington Post gave it front page treatment in an article saying "Romney Draws Early Fire from Conservatives on Climate Change." The article cites Rush Limbaugh and the Club for Growth as leading the criticism against him.
Climate change - and especially how it will impact America's energy choices - is an important issue that deserves real debate. It is true that some policy options will raise the price of energy. However, its important to note that they won't raise its full cost - our society is already paying the costs of climate change and dependence on fossil fuels. As food prices rise, water becomes more scarce, coal kills more miners, and the costs of military deployments in oil producing regions escalates, the cost of energy will continue to rise. ASP's "Pay Now, Pay Later" report quantified the anticipated costs of climate change across the United States. And, Brookings' Hamilton Project recently released an important report that sought to quantify all of energy's externalities.
Even the Bush Administration - enemy #1 for most environmentalists - in 2008 said that the President "wasn't necessarily against cap and trade proposals." We should actually remember that cap-and-trade used to be the preferred Republican Party approach to dealing with pollution. Using the market to internalize the costs of pollution -through either cap and trade or a carbon tax - is an inherently conservative approach to governing.
In a rational political system, the debate would go: climate change is a problem, and these are our ideas for how to solve it. Instead, the debate in this country focuses too much on whether climate change even exists, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Even a skeptic, if he was rational, would acknowledge that it might be a problem, and that prudent risk-management would dictate taking some long-term approaches to reducing risk. Instead, the anti-science climate-deniers have muscled their way into a key part of the Republican Party. Legislators are afraid to acknowledge the reality that the climate is changing because when they do, they get attacked by the loudest voices.
We used to be able to have a serious debate. I hope that Governor Romney's stand on climate change encourages other high profile Republicans to return to the debate on this issue. I see that Governor Huntsman and Governor Christie have said that they acknowledge the science of climate change. The United States faces a lot of challenges over the next decade. On energy, we need to take into account questions of energy security, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. I hope that Governor Romney will engage the Republican hopefuls on this issue so that we can have a real debate on the full costs of energy.
[UPDATE] I see that Al Gore gave some support to Romney on his blog. This probably won't help his bid for the Republican Party's nomination. But it is important to the debate that he hears support.
[UPDATE #2] Reason Magazine agrees with me - "Conservatives once understood that corporations are entitled to foul the environment"
I see now that he has been getting some serious push-back from the right wing of the party. This Washington Post gave it front page treatment in an article saying "Romney Draws Early Fire from Conservatives on Climate Change." The article cites Rush Limbaugh and the Club for Growth as leading the criticism against him.
Climate change - and especially how it will impact America's energy choices - is an important issue that deserves real debate. It is true that some policy options will raise the price of energy. However, its important to note that they won't raise its full cost - our society is already paying the costs of climate change and dependence on fossil fuels. As food prices rise, water becomes more scarce, coal kills more miners, and the costs of military deployments in oil producing regions escalates, the cost of energy will continue to rise. ASP's "Pay Now, Pay Later" report quantified the anticipated costs of climate change across the United States. And, Brookings' Hamilton Project recently released an important report that sought to quantify all of energy's externalities.
Even the Bush Administration - enemy #1 for most environmentalists - in 2008 said that the President "wasn't necessarily against cap and trade proposals." We should actually remember that cap-and-trade used to be the preferred Republican Party approach to dealing with pollution. Using the market to internalize the costs of pollution -through either cap and trade or a carbon tax - is an inherently conservative approach to governing.
In a rational political system, the debate would go: climate change is a problem, and these are our ideas for how to solve it. Instead, the debate in this country focuses too much on whether climate change even exists, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Even a skeptic, if he was rational, would acknowledge that it might be a problem, and that prudent risk-management would dictate taking some long-term approaches to reducing risk. Instead, the anti-science climate-deniers have muscled their way into a key part of the Republican Party. Legislators are afraid to acknowledge the reality that the climate is changing because when they do, they get attacked by the loudest voices.
We used to be able to have a serious debate. I hope that Governor Romney's stand on climate change encourages other high profile Republicans to return to the debate on this issue. I see that Governor Huntsman and Governor Christie have said that they acknowledge the science of climate change. The United States faces a lot of challenges over the next decade. On energy, we need to take into account questions of energy security, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. I hope that Governor Romney will engage the Republican hopefuls on this issue so that we can have a real debate on the full costs of energy.
[UPDATE] I see that Al Gore gave some support to Romney on his blog. This probably won't help his bid for the Republican Party's nomination. But it is important to the debate that he hears support.
[UPDATE #2] Reason Magazine agrees with me - "Conservatives once understood that corporations are entitled to foul the environment"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)