The Complexity of Climate Policy
Jane Van Ryan
Posted December 15, 2009
Yesterday's events at the Copenhagen meeting and in Washington illustrated the difficulty in finding agreement on climate change policy. In Denmark, the United States and China came to an impasse over the monitoring and verification of promised carbon dioxide emission cuts.
China refused to allow international monitoring of its carbon dioxide levels, and the United States balked at joining an international agreement without Chinese emission level verification. Earlier in the day, delegates representing poor nations walked out in protest, claiming that developing nations are not doing enough to reduce emissions.
On Capitol Hill, Sen. John Kerry said a proposal introduced last week by Sens. Collins and Cantwell to return carbon revenue to consumers won't work. Kerry is a co-sponsor of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill that relies on a cap-and-trade system to address climate change as well as a separate framework for a bipartisan bill.
Meanwhile at the White House, the administration delivered a double-barreled message, claiming that its climate change policies would transform energy in this country and generate 700,000 new jobs. Carol Browner, the president's top climate advisor, told reporters, "This is the first time we have really shown the comprehensive nature of what it is this administration has been about." The White House also issued a report on green jobs which noted in the fine print that one person working for two years was counted as two jobs.
And finally, today the president is pushing Congress to create jobs by passing a bill encouraging homeowners to make their homes more energy-efficient. This so-called Cash for Caulkers program could cost more than $150 billion, according to published reports.
Amid these pronouncements and political posturing, one would think there could be a simpler and less expensive way to address our energy needs and create jobs. There is.
It involves allowing the oil and natural gas industry to do what it does best--drill for domestic energy supplies onshore and offshore, create thousands of jobs and generate revenues for the federal, state and local governments. The industry has proven that it can, and does, develop energy resources safely while protecting the environment.
It already supports 9.2 million American jobs. It already is funneling billions of dollars in royalties and tax revenues to government to pay for services such as schools, hospitals and police and fire protection. And it's standing by, willing and able, to do more.
Allowing the oil and natural gas industry to develop domestic energy supplies would enhance energy security, invest U.S. dollars at home and help to fund investments in fuels for the future. Between 2000 and 2008, the industry invested $58.4 in greenhouse gas mitigation technologies and advanced energy--more than was invested by all other U.S.-based private industries or the federal government combined.
It doesn't take a climatologist or a rocket scientist to see the benefits of enhanced domestic energy development. It just takes wisdom and courage to see beyond the politics toward a logical, common sense solution that wouldn't require a bailout or a huge expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.