By: Lisa Elliott
Recently I attended a lecture of panelists in various environmental and energy fields, where they analyzed Obama’s energy policy thus far into his presidential term. They each gave a mini 5 minute lecture about various topics related to parts of energy policy and then graded Obama and the administration on a traditional academic letter grading scale. Obviously a good policy analysis can’t be done in five minutes but I though the grading scale was an interesting way of doing it and they brought up some interesting facts relating to our energy policy. Here is a summary of main points of a few of the speakers:
Speaker: Lisa Dilling, assistant professor of environmental studies at CU, center for science and technology policy research.
Topic: Science Policy
Obama Grade: A-
Lisa Dilling spoke about science policy. She quoted Obama as saying he was going to restore science back to its rightful place, and that the days of science would go back to ideology. She noted that he had already set change form the last administration by funding science research and development programs and agencies focusing on climate change.
Speaker: Joe Feller, professor of law at Arizona State specializing in environment, water issues, and private property
Topic: What the administration has actually done with fossil fuels
Obama Grade: C
Joe Feller noted that it’s only been six to seven months so there is a very small track record to analyze. He also noted that the current administration is constrained by legislative enactments. He said that slowing the consumption of fossil fuels hasn’t helped. The three major areas are coal, oil and oil shale. Thus far into the current administration:
1.Coal production has not slowed, permits and applications to mine are continued to be passed. New expansion in the Powder River basin has been passed.
2.Oil and Gas leasing on public lands and off shore has continued at pace with the old administration. 2.4 million acres of new leasing in-land and 53 million acres in the Gulf off sore. The only leases that have been withdrawn are in very scenic areas like national parks.
3.The new administration has continued to pursue oil shale, and has not slowed the exploration for oil shale. However the oil shale industry itself is very slow moving so progress has been delayed some
Speaker: Paul Komer, professor at CU in environmental studies. Renewable energy policy expert, Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Topic: Renewable
Obama Grade: Administration A-, Congress B-
Paul Komer spoke about the funding and legislation of renewables.
Funding: He noted that the administration has a lot of money to spend on renewables and has spent a lot of it quickly. He pointed out that it’s hard to spend a lot of money well and do it quickly. He encouraged more analysis before just spending loads of money.
Legislation: Many states have requirements that certain amounts of energy come from renewable. 25 states have this policy. The administration supports an option that requires all states to have a requirement. If the bill passes through congress there will be more incentive for renewable energy.
5 comments:
I think it is interesting that the panel had very different grades based on fossil fuel consumption and renewables. It is clear that the use of renewable energy sources has become increasingly popular, but it feels like there won't be any real progress toward cleaning up the environment until fossil fuel usage is severely decreased. It seems that Obama is putting a lot of emphasis on new renewables as they become popular and profitable but will have a harder time putting restrictions on already existing "dirty" energy sectors. There needs to be some serious government incentives to switching to renewable energy or clean energy needs to become much cheaper before we will see firms pushing renewables and rejecting oil and coal.
I believe that while it is taking awhile for President Obama to make some of the changes he promised in fossil fuel consumption and renewable energy, he is really trying to improve the overall research in these fields. He gave permission for over 20 million dollars to be delegated to the Department of Interior, which controls the majority of energy and land use departments, for the specific intent of research in our impact on climate and renewable energy. Obama has only been in office for 8 months, it is going to take longer than that to see major change.
Laura Schafenacker
For what it's worth, it seems a little unfair to criticize the president at this juncture for energy policy. Energy is important, but the reality is that it needs to take a backseat behind the two wars we're fighting, the safety of the world economy, and (perhaps) our health care issues. That said, I'm happy with the steps that have been taken on this issue. The introduction of a cap and trade policy, the increase in auto fuel efficiency standards, and cash for clunkers (debatably) seem to be small steps, but sustained incremental change is the best outcome I think we can hope for under the circumstances.
I liked the grading system, gave me a concrete way to view things. It's good that many panelists pointed out the need to pause and think about effective ways to spend money in regards to renewable. I know Obama's administration wants to show change fast, but I respect those that want to show it well too. Of course, the general public usually only reacts to results.
Thank you Lisa for attending and sharing. Those are some interesting grades. I agree with Glenn, though, that it seems pretty early to be handing out judgment. I appreciate that the speaker who gave Obama a C acknowledged that fact. Responding more to Glenn's comment, I was a shocked to see energy separated from world economy as two completely different issues. How can the world economy possibly be secured without effective energy policy? I was also surprised to see U.S. health care lumped together with the global economy on the level of importance and as more of a priority than energy. Our irresponsible energy habits directly correlate with climate change, which could have global effects far more reaching than one spoiled country's (granted, severely lacking) health care system. Where should our priorities really be?
Post a Comment