Don't get too cozy, Obama

Obama has made a huge mistake here. Since the gulf oil spill happened thirty seven days ago, the Obama Administration has shied away from striking a definitive tone on BP's handling of the effort. This has presumably been because it happened in the wake of Obama's offshore drilling expansion. The Obama Administration likely wants to avoid the appearance of flip-flopping on the issue. The ensuing environmental catastrophe has the potential to sink the newfound confidence within the Democratic establishment.

The handling of this situation did not have to be so horrible. The Obama Administration opened new offshore drilling, a relatively popular move with the electorate, even though policy wonks predicted it would not have much effect. Obama could have moved the response away from being a referendum on offshore drilling, and toward a referendum on big oil companies influencing the bureaucracies enforcing safety regulations. Instead, Republican lawmakers somehow are arguing that Obama is getting cozy with big oil. This is a ridiculous claim, if you compare parties receiving corporate contributions from oil companies.

Don't get me wrong. Offshore drilling will not solve our energy problems in a meaningful and sustainable way. This being said, a weakened Obama presidency is the last thing proponents of alternative energy need right now. Lets reflect on the implications of this spill, but also remember the Obama Administration is not the culprit here.

Is this even a climate bill anymore?

John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have finally unveiled their "climate change" bill. It is very surprising that it does not have significant Republican backing as it hardly does anything good. It promotes nuclear power, regulates some offshore drilling, gives 2 billion dollars to the coal industry for research, among other things. It does not address the huge carbon footprint of industrial agriculture, as the entire agricultural sector is exempt from the carbon trading scheme. The bill does very little to promote renewable energy or public transportation, two central pillars of a green economy. It contains huge carve outs for industries that senate Democrats will need on board such as coal and natural gas. The bill sets a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 as its goal, but this is exactly that, a goal.

This bill is in its current form because of bipartisan negotiations with Lindsay Graham, who pulled his support at the last minute due to his frustration about the immigration debate. I won't comment much on this move, but it does present a problem. If this is the starting legislation in the senate, the final legislation will be significantly more conservative than this. Anything more conservative than this will start to do more harm than good. I've always argued the most sound way to combat climate change is to restructure the economy through incentives to one that is more environmentally friendly. This bill really will not do this. It can be thought of as more of an "energy independence" plan. After all, that is why the authors named it the American Power Act.

With legislation like this, the argument for a piecemeal approach to climate change solutions grow. Harry Reid declared earlier this week that he is open to a smaller bill that is targeted at renewable energy such as wind and solar. To many environmentalists, this may seem like a non-starter. Though a piecemeal approach would ultimately be less effective, it would be a much more efficient way of doing things at the moment. Harry Reid claims there is bipartisan backing for a renewable energy bill in the senate right now. If he is right, we would do well to move a very progressive energy bill without 2 billion for coal stuffed in. This could be followed by increased energy efficiency standards from the EPA and other congressional measures to address agriculture, such as a sensible farm bill. One thing is for certain, this bill will not do.