...the more they stay the same. In the year since I started this blog, we've witnessed many substantial changes, events, and progressions on the energy/climate frontier. And yet, on the whole, it seems American policy hasn't evolved much at all. Three examples illustrate this frustrating truth*.- As you may have heard, this week is the one-year anniversary of the blowout at the BP's Macando well in the Gulf of Mexico. Described (accurately) as the worst environmental disaster in American history, the months-long fiasco spilled tens of millions of gallons, endangered local enterprise, public health, and demonstrated the terrifying and disproportionate disaster potential of our fossil fuel addiction. However, a year later, and Congress has yet to react to the Gulf catastrophe with any kind of legislation. Not only did we fail to come close to passing a cap-and-trade bill, but we couldn't even pass policy changes increasing the liability of oil companies in damages caused by accidents from $75 million to a more reasonable figure or widening the purview of regulators to oversee offshore oil drilling. For perhaps the most-reported non-nuclear energy accident in history, its legacy in American policy will apparently be shockingly empty.
- Last April, energy and environmental advocates cheered the Interior Department's approval of Cape Wind, the nation's first offshore wind farm. The victory came after a decade-long battle (the project was first proposed in 2001) against NIMBYism and obstructionist tactics to block construction. This past week, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement approved the project's construction plans. While technically good news, the Cape Wind saga demonstrates the unacceptable time frames with which we measure success in the Energy Quest, and as Alexis Madrigal pointed out, it is unclear how we will overcome these infrastructural challenges.
- Finally, we return to cap-and-trade. As I mentioned, last summer witnessed the upsetting (but not super surprising) failure of the American Power Act, which was originally Senators Kerry and Lieberman's cap-and-trade legislation. Californians, on the other hand, celebrated the defeat of Proposition 23 in November, whose backers sought to block AB 32, the state's own cap-and-trade policy ... until a coalition of environmental groups, the Association of Irritated Residents, blocked AB 32 in court. Keep in mind that these environmental groups were instrumental in campaigning against Prop 23, and proceeded with an about-face to reject the environmental policy on the grounds that it would concentrate non-uniformly mixed pollutants like NOx and sulfur dioxides in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Dave Roberts explains why this probably isn't true. From a big picture perspective, this example illustrates the difficulty of advancing energy and climate policy, even in California, "America's laboratory."
These and other distressing stalls and defeats show plainly that standard operating procedure in American energy policy is not working quickly enough. Tackling the problems of our fossil fuel addiction, national recession, increasingly violent resource wars, and climate change will require a change in dynamics. The sooner we transition to a policy agenda based on technological innovation, workforce and STEM education, and cohesive infrastructural progress, the better. ______________________________________________________*Yes, I'm cherry-picking. Please, PLEASE give me examples of why I'm wrong!
Yesterday, Secretary Salazar announced the development of the nation's first offshore wind farm six miles off the coast of Cape Cod. What's that, green blogosphere? You have something to say?- Kate Sheppard (Mother Jones): "The project was especially salient in light of the current drilling catastrophe off the coast of Louisiana, where the Coast Guard today announced that it is planning to light the oil spill on fire in order to protect the sensitive coastline."
- Paul Krugman (New York Times): "The spectacle of affluent clean-energy advocates getting all worked up at the prospect of actually putting windmills where they might see them played right into right-wing caricatures. Let's hope that's now over."
- Frances Beinecke (Natural Resource Defense Council): "I will always return to the Cape, and now, when I look out on the seascapes I love so much, I will be pleased to catch the sight of wind turbines. That is the view to the future."
- Yael Borofsky (The Breakthrough Institute): "As energy demand rises and population grows, we will only continue to have to make difficult, educated decisions about energy production."
- Todd Woody (Grist): "To be sure, there are wind farms, solar installations, and biomass plants East of the Mississippi. But Big Green Power has largely been a phenomenon of the West Coast and the Great Plains, regions rich in wind and sunshine."
This morning, Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar announced the Obama Administration's approval of the United States' first offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound. First proposed by Cape Wind Associates in November, 2001, the project represents a potentially groundbreaking step in the path towards American clean energy generation. Over the last decade, the story of Cape Wind has been girded with engineering challenges, NIMBYism and environmental impact statements. And despite the opposition of conservationist efforts of groups like the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, I applaud the decision. I concede there are differences in aesthetic preferences, but I would personally prefer the sight of an offshore wind farm to an offshore oil rig, much less and exploding oil rig. At any rate, the Department of Energy predicts that offshore wind farms can account for 4% of the nation's energy generation by 2030, and I think this is an excellent first step...provided it doesn't take a decade for each subsequent offshore wind project.
