Energetics Cliff Notes - Friday Edition

• Dave Roberts gets hopeful over the Senate Democrats' caucus yesterday, thinking carbon pricing may be back in the mix.
• Michael Levi discusses the inherent problem in the climate science/climate skeptics debate, as illustrated by the latest poll of climate researchers.
• In a similar vein, Roger Pielke Jr. asks: Do climate back lists matter?
• Weeks after Obama lifted the moratorium on deep-water drilling, he put the cap back on, so to speak. Now a judge has lifted his replaced moratorium.
• Bryan Walsh at TIME thinks the oil spill might be good for environmentalism as a whole.
• Andy Revkin gives us a much-needed reminder of the energy innovation gap (with help from my Professor at Cal, Dan Kammen).
• SciAm interviews Jon Wellinghoff, FERC chairman, on his predictions for the US electrical grid.
• Researchers at MIT continue their quest to use America's vast domestic resources of natural gas as a platform towards renewable energy.

Obama continues to avoid specifics on energy legislation

Here's a video update from President Obama to members of Organizing for America (OFA) on the BP Deepwater oil spill:

Some may be excited by the President's rhetoric, like Dave Roberts at Grist, who tweeted earlier today: "@drgrist: In a direct message to supporters, Obama gets behind a comprehensive energy/climate bill...Yes, CLIMATE."

But I wouldn't break out the champagne yet. In the above video, President Obama essentially regurgitated his message from his Oval Office address last week: the time for a clean energy future is now. He just left out the part about how we get there. Cap-and-trade? Subsidies for clean tech? Transportation policy? Technology policy? Education policy? People usually seem to think that a "comprehensive" energy policy must by definition embrace all forms of currently available energy, but what it should mean is a complete package of clean energy policies, one that has the potential to decarbonize the economy and create clean, cheap, renewable and abundant energy for the future. Such a mixture of policies will require massive investment in infrastructure, technological R&D and deployment, transportation and commerce reform, and pollution controls to name just a few.

In a nervous throwback to his early behavior during the health care debate last year, President Obama has yet to endorse (or even mention) his preferred policies for achieving his goal of a clean energy future. For now, he has the Joe Barton fiasco to distract the public into believing that Democrats have a better plan than Republicans; he'll have to act fast if he wants to put together a decent bill.

Quote of the Day

"We are an unstoppable oil-dependency breaking machine! ...Unfortunately, the machine runs on oil." - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

Advancing in Another Direction

Well, last night President Obama gave his first Oval Office address to the nation. The topic: the oil spill and America's long-term energy (and climate) policy. To say the least, the coverage for his speech has not been great. The Huffington Post called it a "junk shot," and Kate Sheppard lamented that Obama "only uttered the word 'climate' once" while scolding the President for not detailing his Gulf "battle plan" or demanding specific reparations from BP. Ezra Klein wrote that the president "shied away from clearly describing the problem, did not endorse specific legislation, did not set benchmarks, and chose poll-tested language that might persuade skeptics."

So, following a speech which many (myself included) had hoped would mark the political turning point in America's addiction to oil, we have three main criticisms:

1. Not enough climate rhetoric.
2. Not enough specifics in the "make BP pay" rhetoric.
3. Overly broad, glossy language that failed to amount to any kind of strategy.

On the second point: AP is reporting that BP, in a meeting with President Obama, has agreed to finance a $20 billion fund to pay claims of people whose lives and livelihoods have been damaged by the Gulf spill. This far exceeds the $75 million liability cap established by the 1990 law, so it's a start. Raising the cap, or eliminating one altogether, could be an important next step, but this is good news.

On the first point: a failure to mention cap-and-trade or a price on carbon anywhere in his speech has led many to the conclusion that cap-and-trade is dead (where have we heard that before?). Many will say that Obama is retreating on a climate policy he once endorsed, if unenthusiastically. But as the saying goes, I believe he's advancing in another direction. Perhaps the President, having observed the Gulf Spill has his top priority for two months, has come to acknowledge what Senator Kerry said just this past week: there aren't sixty votes for his APA bill, or any energy bill currently on the table. It seems to me that the President has picked cap-and-trade as a loser, and will not pursue it any further. That does not mean, however, that he's given up on an effective energy policy. Notably, the carbon price established in APA would do little to advance clean energy solutions that we desperately need. As Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins described in their analysis of APA, "this program is unlikely to result in significant deployment levels, particularly in the near-term, due to the cost containment mechanisms that will keep carbon prices relatively modest, as well as the persistence of many non-price-related barriers to clean energy adoption" (pdf).

Basically, the politically possible version of cap-and-trade was never that effective anyway, so retreating from it as a policy mechanism may not only be good politics, but good leadership. The question remains, however, of what will take its place. I have advocated for effective and comprehensive technology and competitiveness policy, which could garner bipartisan support in Congress and the approval of the American public. Unfortunately, this is where President Obama did disappoint me last night. As the third criticism I outlined above observes, his speech did not provide any specific strategy for fixing America's energy policy.

Many are upset at the President's tacit retreat on cap-and-trade. I'm upset because he doesn't seem to know which direction to advance in now.

Worst-Case Scenario

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/worst_case_scenario.png