Energy Reform: Obama’s New Priority
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 19 July 2010
by Corine Lesnes (link to original)
After the reform of Wall Street comes climate reform. Continuing his legislative marathon in order to get as much of his program as possible through Congress before the midterm elections in November, President Obama launched his action plan to advance the cause of energy reform, which had been on hold in the Senate for a few months. But, as in the previous reform projects, it seems the Obama administration will have to cut back on some of its objectives.
One hundred days away from the midterm elections, a number of senators — Republicans but also some Democrats — balk at the idea of establishing a restrictive system limiting CO2 emissions, even if it is only imposed on one sector of the economy: electricity production.
Since the start of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the president has multiplied the opportunities to promote renewable energies. On July 15, he appeared at the wheel of an electric car during the groundbreaking ceremony of a factory in Michigan that produces batteries. On July 19, he brought together ministers and high officials from 21 countries in Washington for an international conference on clean energies. The conference was organized by Secretary of Energy, and Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Steven Chu.
These events occur just as the Senate is about to start actively moving toward a general discussion on a future bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would introduce a bill at the end of the month. The objective is to have discussed — and possibly voted on — a first legislative chapter before the August break.
The senators should start with the easy part: that which deals with the outcomes of the oil spill. The bill proposes to raise the ceiling of compensations owed by the oil companies in case of a disaster; it also reinforces security requirements and ensures the independence of the governmental branch which gives the go-ahead to drill in the sea.
Republicans would gladly stop there, but Senator Reid added three more chapters — and much more sensitivity — to this piece of legislation. One deals with renewable energies, and the last one concerns toxic gas emissions produced by the electricity industry. At the conclusion of a meeting with President Obama, John Kerry confirmed that the president remains “very clear about putting a price on carbon.” The Democratic senator criticized those who no longer want to hear about a bill on climate change by pointing out that, despite having passed 10 bills since Nixon, “None of them have done the job." But Jeff Bingaman — the president of the energy commission and also a Democrat — said it loud and clear: “There is a big gap between what the scientists say we should do to deal with climate change, and what the politics of the Congress today, and particularly the politics of the Senate, will allow us to do.”
Once again, what is at stake is the attainment of a super-majority of 60 votes. A few Republicans are open to the idea of a legal limitation. But the Democrats are the ones missing this time. If, during health care reform, the Blue Dogs, or moderate democrats, had been the ones to give the administration a hard time, this time it’s the Brown Dogs. Senators from coal mining or oil producing states are completely opposed to a quota system to put a ceiling on emissions. Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, indicated that he would even oppose the debate itself if the electrical companies were to be stigmatized.
Senator Harry Reid plans to reach out directly to public opinion. He recently invited a professor of neuroscience to explain to his team the need to change the language and to present the debate in terms of patriotism and energy independence rather than in terms of regulation.
Today, the Democrats must bring forth their concern for “clean energies” in opposition to the Republicans’ “dirty energies.” Senator Reid himself no longer uses the term “toxic gas emissions.” He speaks of “pollution.”
One hundred days away from the midterm elections, a number of senators — Republicans but also some Democrats — balk at the idea of establishing a restrictive system limiting CO2 emissions, even if it is only imposed on one sector of the economy: electricity production.
Since the start of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the president has multiplied the opportunities to promote renewable energies. On July 15, he appeared at the wheel of an electric car during the groundbreaking ceremony of a factory in Michigan that produces batteries. On July 19, he brought together ministers and high officials from 21 countries in Washington for an international conference on clean energies. The conference was organized by Secretary of Energy, and Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Steven Chu.
These events occur just as the Senate is about to start actively moving toward a general discussion on a future bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would introduce a bill at the end of the month. The objective is to have discussed — and possibly voted on — a first legislative chapter before the August break.
The senators should start with the easy part: that which deals with the outcomes of the oil spill. The bill proposes to raise the ceiling of compensations owed by the oil companies in case of a disaster; it also reinforces security requirements and ensures the independence of the governmental branch which gives the go-ahead to drill in the sea.
Republicans would gladly stop there, but Senator Reid added three more chapters — and much more sensitivity — to this piece of legislation. One deals with renewable energies, and the last one concerns toxic gas emissions produced by the electricity industry. At the conclusion of a meeting with President Obama, John Kerry confirmed that the president remains “very clear about putting a price on carbon.” The Democratic senator criticized those who no longer want to hear about a bill on climate change by pointing out that, despite having passed 10 bills since Nixon, “None of them have done the job." But Jeff Bingaman — the president of the energy commission and also a Democrat — said it loud and clear: “There is a big gap between what the scientists say we should do to deal with climate change, and what the politics of the Congress today, and particularly the politics of the Senate, will allow us to do.”
Once again, what is at stake is the attainment of a super-majority of 60 votes. A few Republicans are open to the idea of a legal limitation. But the Democrats are the ones missing this time. If, during health care reform, the Blue Dogs, or moderate democrats, had been the ones to give the administration a hard time, this time it’s the Brown Dogs. Senators from coal mining or oil producing states are completely opposed to a quota system to put a ceiling on emissions. Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, indicated that he would even oppose the debate itself if the electrical companies were to be stigmatized.
Senator Harry Reid plans to reach out directly to public opinion. He recently invited a professor of neuroscience to explain to his team the need to change the language and to present the debate in terms of patriotism and energy independence rather than in terms of regulation.
Today, the Democrats must bring forth their concern for “clean energies” in opposition to the Republicans’ “dirty energies.” Senator Reid himself no longer uses the term “toxic gas emissions.” He speaks of “pollution.”
Next article![]( "Afghanistan Takes Control of Its Own Destiny")
