In fact, I'd say that most folks fall somewhere in the middle of the two extreme, polar opposite viewpoints that get most of the attention. If you listen to the media, there is one side of the coin who cares only about protecting the environment at all costs. It's green energy or no energy. Forget about jobs, foreign policy or any other factors, just stop global warming. The other side is portrayed as caring only about reducing dependency on foreign oil. What global warming? It doesn't even exist, or if it does, it's not man that caused it. We just need to drill to get out of this mess. These are the extremes.
After reviewing the presidential candidate's positions, it is clear that neither one holds either of these extreme viewpoints. I would say most people have some level of concern about the environment, foreign oil dependence, and economic factors such as gas prices, when it comes to how they feel about energy. John McCain certainly doesn't want to wreck the environment, and Barack Obama doesn't doesn't want to ignore the risk of relying on foreign countries for oil. I think their views are reflective of the views of the members of Congress and probably the population at large, excluding of course the small minority of people that hold extreme views. When you look at it from that perspective, the two sides don't seem so far apart anymore. There are differences to be sure, and those differences are to be expected. As long as members of government are representing their constituencies, and their opinions, then government is doing its job.
The problem is, elected government officials do not always make decisions based on the beliefs of he people who voted them into office. At times they are influenced by lobbyists. I believe the lobbyists work at keeping the two sides polarized. Big business lobbyists exert their influence on the government in order to push their own agendas, which is not representative of the desires and opinions of the citizens. In the energy game, big oil is where the big bucks are. The oil industry is on track to spend over $83 million lobbying this year. The renewable energy industry and the environmental movement combined will likely spend half of what the oil companies spend. If members of Congress were not under the influence of special interest groups, I believe the two sides would be closer. The influence of lobbying always sets an unfair playing field, which gives the advantage to the side with the most available dollars.
The issue of lobbying also leaves the environmentalists and alternative energy industries at a disadvantage in terms of getting their message out to consumers. They are forced to spend money to compete with oil companies in the lobbying arena, but inevitably, they are not given the same tax breaks and incentives. Oil companies are some of the largest companies in the world and also are some of the most profitable, yet they continue to get the biggest tax breaks. Of course they outspend the alternative energy and environmental movement in terms of advertising as well. That's why the drilling message is so much more prevalent than the conservation message.
Strong leadership is a must in order to bring the two sides closer together. A major energy bill has yet to be passed even though many have been introduced in Congress. This can be attributed to several factors, but a key one has to be the lack of leadership in bringing the two sides together on energy, which both sides recognize to be a very serious issue. Leadership is also key in order to get the message out to consumers regarding conservation. If we truly have the ability to impact our foreign oil dependency by making a concerted effort at conservation, then everyone should know about it. This is one area that both sides should agree on. It satisfies the environmentalists while reducing our foreign oil dependency. It doesn't require any capital investment. So if both sides are for it, who is against it? The big oil companies of course. They don't want us to use less oil, it means less profit for them. Perhaps that's why we rarely hear about conservation. It's been talked about for some time, but now is the time that we need to act on eliminating the influence of lobbyists in Washington. If we do that, we will definitely remove at least one obstacle that is in the way of both sides coming together on the energy issue.
3 comments:
I am not optimistic that both sides can find common ground. The issue and the whole 2009Presidential election has been nothing but acrimonious. However, I do think an energy policy will go the way of airbags; nice to have until the government mandates the placement in all vehicles which then increases the cost of a car to everyone not just the careless drivers or the people who don't wear a seatbelt. Bottom line, we need to get more people like Boone Pickens focused on the energy issue. http://news.cnet.com/t-boone-pickens-energy-plan/
I believe that part of the reason we haven't introduced an energy conservation bill into Congress, most especially recently, is because of the current state of affairs of oil. Oil has reached the lowest price, per barrel, out of the past year; this directly affects how concerned Americans are with conservation.
Unfortunately, things will not get better in terms of our (meaning the average American) views on energy conservation until things get worse. "Worse" can entail a spike in oil prices again, or worse, yet inevitably, running out of oil completely. Just like Americans finally came around, to a certain degree, to using smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, this only happened when we were literally forced to through the peaking of oil prices.
The only thing that will make us change is when we are, directly and individually, affected by our excessive usage of oil.
RESPONSE TO LITTLERHODY AND NORA:
I agree that the solution to our energy problems cannot come entirely, or perhaps even mostly from the government. I think there are major issues preventing the government from having addressed the issue of energy in a meaningful way. Nora's comment illustrates one of the reasons the government has not been effective. I share her concern that the push for alternative energy comes and goes with the fluctuation of oil prices, which supports her claim that the only time the government and perhaps even the citizens really make attempts at conservation is when the situation impacts their wallets.
For that reason, it looks like the real push for alternative energy will come from the private sector, possibly in combination with influential environmental groups, state government, and other civic minded groups.
Thank you both for your participation in the conversation!
Post a Comment