The Battle for a Green America
Published in Zeit
(Germany) on 24 June 2010
by Felix Wadewitz, Thorsten Schröder (link to original)
The oil spill could lead to a breakthrough in U.S. President Obama’s push for clean energy. However, in reality, the catastrophe threatens the future of climate protection legislation.
The president’s words were clear: The United States must end its dependence on foreign oil reserves. In a long-awaited television address, the government leader said that alternative energy sources, such as solar energy, must be developed without delay.
That was in 1974. The president was Richard Nixon.
Since Nixon’s day it has become almost a tradition for American presidents to call for a change in energy policy. They all have done so, from Gerald Ford to both Bushes to Bill Clinton. But essentially, the country saw no change for decades. The Americans still use more energy per capita than any other nation; only the Chinese pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Hoping to finally change this, Obama doesn't just call for green electricity — he actively promotes the cause. By 2012, green electricity should compose 10 percent of total electricity used, and one quarter of total electricity by 2025. At present, 35 American states are expanding their capacity in renewable energy sources. The largest wind farm in the world is in Texas, constructed in collaboration with the German energy giant Eon. And by 2016, about $3 billion will be invested in solar energy projects in California. So is America really turning green?
“A lot has changed under Obama,” says Robert Pollin, a professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. “Something is being done, we are finally moving in the right direction.”* The president set aside $100 billion from the stimulus package for eco-projects intended to boost the economy. Homeowners receive incentive payments if they make energy-saving improvements to their property. However, Obama wants even more. A Green America will become a job-creation engine for the 21st century, as demonstrated in the model city Toledo, situated just a few miles from Detroit. Nowhere else in the country are there as many start-ups that put their faith in renewable energy.
In Toledo, most workers used to be employed in the auto industry, but since then, the big American manufacturers have scaled down their operations. Dan Klear worked at General Motors for years, but today, the 57-year-old installs solar collectors. “Green energy is a godsend for all of us,” Klear says.* Thousands of jobs have been created in Toledo thanks to the solar sector.
“Toledo shows us that we are moving in the right direction,” Pollin says, “but to be honest, that is far from enough.”* The speed of change is too slow, the progress too modest. An example to put beacons like Toledo into perspective: The total capacity of U.S. photovoltaic plants is estimated to be 1.6 gigawatts, while in Europe, that number is already near 16 gigawatts. “We have to think and act on a larger scale,” says Pollin. And until comprehensive climate legislation is passed, nothing has been accomplished. But this legislation is exactly what remains highly uncertain.
Of course, the House of Representatives has already passed a climate and energy bill, which aims to dramatically lower the emission of greenhouse gases. However, the bill has gotten stuck in the Senate. Most Republicans categorically oppose introducing emissions trading (called cap and trade in the United States). But most climate protection advocates agree: without a limit on carbon dioxide emissions the entire undertaking loses its sense of purpose. At present, Senate committees are buzzing with different proposals — a convincing majority in a test vote looks distant.
Obama and the climate advocates on his side face powerful opposition. According to the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C., of the more than 1,100 interest groups that seek to influence climate legislation, the most influential and financially powerful are those fighting against climate protections.
The American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group for the oil and gas industry, has nearly unlimited resources at its disposal to make the White House’s climate policy seem like a job-killer. This frightens many members of Congress, who are spending more time than usual in their home districts to make campaign pitches, as congressional elections are in November. If Obama loses the majority, the climate bill could remain a mere vision for years to come.
That is why the president’s camp has made a compromise, which for many, goes too far. As part of the new energy concept, deep-sea drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico would be expanded. Nuclear power would also be expanded. In return, a nationwide cap on carbon dioxide emissions would be included in the law.
In the face of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, however, Obama has backpedaled. Polls show that public support of offshore drilling fell from 66 percent to 49 percent following the BP catastrophe. Obama is currently fighting for a second ban, consequently losing the Democrats and Republicans who wanted compromise, and are now withdrawing their support.
Obama is trying to use the agitation caused by the oil spill to build momentum for his climate policies. “We can’t afford not to change,” he said in his very first Oval Office address. “The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now.” But without the compromise, which depended on support for drilling on America’s own doorstep, the chances of success decline dramatically.
“Emissions trading will fall victim to American political games,” fears Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch, an environmentalist organization. “I am pessimistic that anything will come of it.”* The bill’s opponents are already using the oil spill to put off a vote on the legislation until after the elections. “Americans want us to stop the oil catastrophe,” Senator Mitch McConnell ranted. “Until that happens they don’t feel like giving even more power in the form of an energy tax to a government that isn’t able to respond to the crisis.”* The voices pointing out that our dependence on fossil fuels led to the crisis in the first place are hardly heard.
In any case, residents of the solar city Toledo are skeptical that Washington will provide support. “In January,” says solar-panel installer James Heider, “Joe Biden was in the city.” The vice president promised the business $10 million in aid. “None of that has arrived.”*
*EDITOR'S NOTE: The original quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.
The president’s words were clear: The United States must end its dependence on foreign oil reserves. In a long-awaited television address, the government leader said that alternative energy sources, such as solar energy, must be developed without delay.
That was in 1974. The president was Richard Nixon.
Since Nixon’s day it has become almost a tradition for American presidents to call for a change in energy policy. They all have done so, from Gerald Ford to both Bushes to Bill Clinton. But essentially, the country saw no change for decades. The Americans still use more energy per capita than any other nation; only the Chinese pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Hoping to finally change this, Obama doesn't just call for green electricity — he actively promotes the cause. By 2012, green electricity should compose 10 percent of total electricity used, and one quarter of total electricity by 2025. At present, 35 American states are expanding their capacity in renewable energy sources. The largest wind farm in the world is in Texas, constructed in collaboration with the German energy giant Eon. And by 2016, about $3 billion will be invested in solar energy projects in California. So is America really turning green?
“A lot has changed under Obama,” says Robert Pollin, a professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. “Something is being done, we are finally moving in the right direction.”* The president set aside $100 billion from the stimulus package for eco-projects intended to boost the economy. Homeowners receive incentive payments if they make energy-saving improvements to their property. However, Obama wants even more. A Green America will become a job-creation engine for the 21st century, as demonstrated in the model city Toledo, situated just a few miles from Detroit. Nowhere else in the country are there as many start-ups that put their faith in renewable energy.
In Toledo, most workers used to be employed in the auto industry, but since then, the big American manufacturers have scaled down their operations. Dan Klear worked at General Motors for years, but today, the 57-year-old installs solar collectors. “Green energy is a godsend for all of us,” Klear says.* Thousands of jobs have been created in Toledo thanks to the solar sector.
“Toledo shows us that we are moving in the right direction,” Pollin says, “but to be honest, that is far from enough.”* The speed of change is too slow, the progress too modest. An example to put beacons like Toledo into perspective: The total capacity of U.S. photovoltaic plants is estimated to be 1.6 gigawatts, while in Europe, that number is already near 16 gigawatts. “We have to think and act on a larger scale,” says Pollin. And until comprehensive climate legislation is passed, nothing has been accomplished. But this legislation is exactly what remains highly uncertain.
Of course, the House of Representatives has already passed a climate and energy bill, which aims to dramatically lower the emission of greenhouse gases. However, the bill has gotten stuck in the Senate. Most Republicans categorically oppose introducing emissions trading (called cap and trade in the United States). But most climate protection advocates agree: without a limit on carbon dioxide emissions the entire undertaking loses its sense of purpose. At present, Senate committees are buzzing with different proposals — a convincing majority in a test vote looks distant.
Obama and the climate advocates on his side face powerful opposition. According to the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C., of the more than 1,100 interest groups that seek to influence climate legislation, the most influential and financially powerful are those fighting against climate protections.
The American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group for the oil and gas industry, has nearly unlimited resources at its disposal to make the White House’s climate policy seem like a job-killer. This frightens many members of Congress, who are spending more time than usual in their home districts to make campaign pitches, as congressional elections are in November. If Obama loses the majority, the climate bill could remain a mere vision for years to come.
That is why the president’s camp has made a compromise, which for many, goes too far. As part of the new energy concept, deep-sea drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico would be expanded. Nuclear power would also be expanded. In return, a nationwide cap on carbon dioxide emissions would be included in the law.
In the face of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, however, Obama has backpedaled. Polls show that public support of offshore drilling fell from 66 percent to 49 percent following the BP catastrophe. Obama is currently fighting for a second ban, consequently losing the Democrats and Republicans who wanted compromise, and are now withdrawing their support.
Obama is trying to use the agitation caused by the oil spill to build momentum for his climate policies. “We can’t afford not to change,” he said in his very first Oval Office address. “The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now.” But without the compromise, which depended on support for drilling on America’s own doorstep, the chances of success decline dramatically.
“Emissions trading will fall victim to American political games,” fears Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch, an environmentalist organization. “I am pessimistic that anything will come of it.”* The bill’s opponents are already using the oil spill to put off a vote on the legislation until after the elections. “Americans want us to stop the oil catastrophe,” Senator Mitch McConnell ranted. “Until that happens they don’t feel like giving even more power in the form of an energy tax to a government that isn’t able to respond to the crisis.”* The voices pointing out that our dependence on fossil fuels led to the crisis in the first place are hardly heard.
In any case, residents of the solar city Toledo are skeptical that Washington will provide support. “In January,” says solar-panel installer James Heider, “Joe Biden was in the city.” The vice president promised the business $10 million in aid. “None of that has arrived.”*
*EDITOR'S NOTE: The original quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Next article![]( "General Obama")
