Cutting innovation to pay for dependency

Virginia representatives signing the letter were Jim Moran (VA-8) and Bobby Scott (VA-3). None of the eight Virginia Republican representatives signed the document.

But why would there even need to be such a letter in the first place? After all, President Bush has discussed America's need to become energy independent, and has even made speeches supporting the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Perhaps the letter was needed because President Bush?s 2006 budget slashed the budget of the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) by $20 million (10% of 2005?s budget), while cutting EERE by 5%.

All three Virginia Democrats opposed the budget resolution, which is good news. Unfortunately, cuts to renewable energy programs occurred in large omnibus bills, where Democrats in the House are outnumbered.  In addition, Democrats are frequently forced to fight larger battles - like protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the Clean Air Act ? diverting their energies from smaller battles. For instance, Democrats were unable to stop the elimination of the popular, effective, $20 million USDA Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program.

Apparently, Republicans in Congress believe that the major drain on our country is entitlement programs, not imported oil and energy dependence.  Bush's most recent tax bill was so outlandishly conservative and backward thinking that not a single Democrat in the House or the Senate voted for it, with all three Virginia Democrats voting in opposition. Dick Cheney even had to break a tie in the Senate. Nine Virginia Republicans voted for the bill, with JoAnn Davis (VA-1) not bothering to vote at all.  Meanwhile, a temporary windfall tax on obscene oil company profits was buried in a Republican-controlled House committee. A similar bill did manage to make it to the floor of the Senate, but every single Republican Senator voted against it - while 33 of 44 Democrats had the courage to vote for it.

Republican opposition to U.S. Energy independence is not a new phenomenon. Back in 1995, the newly Republican-controlled House threatened massive cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. In response, Virginia representatives Democrat Bobby Scott (VA-3), and Democrat Rick Boucher (VA-9) backed a counter-amendment to actually increase the funding. This effort ? no thanks to Tom Davis, Bob Goodleatte and Frank Wolf ? managed to salvage much of the funding in an era of deep cuts.

Today, however, it is almost impossible in the House to place renewable energy and energy efficiency on the table. In the conference committee on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, compromises with the House forced the removal of a National Renewable Energy standard of 10% by 2020.  In addition, the Senate-supported extension of a production tax credit for renewable energy was reduced from three years to two. Why do Republicans keep slashing programs that might actually help reduce our dependence on oil imports from Iraq and elsewhere?  Why do they respond to a problem by making ?cuts? to the solution?

Perhaps one answer lies in the revealing response of many Republicans to Hurricane Katrina. Apparently, the #1 priority for these people was to protect the reputation of their fossil-fuel producing campaign contributors, in part by debunking the idea that global warming might have contributed to the disaster. As a matter of fact, many meteorologists believe that frequency and intensity of hurricanes are increasing due in part to warmer waters in the Gulf of Mexico. There is also growing evidence that global warming is contributing to those warmer waters. In other words, although global warming ? fueled by carbon dioxide emissions from oil and coal consumption ? didn?t directly cause Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there is growing evidence that unusually warm waters made them stronger and more destructive.

So why don't Republicans support renewables and energy efficiency over fossil fuels? Could it have something to do with the fact that Republicans are beholden to their big contributors in the fossil fuel industry? Could it be that these Republican lawmakers are serving big oil companies, not the American people? Sure seems that way.

That's why the only way to avoid an energy and environmental crisis is to elect those who are willing to deal with it. And, overwhelmingly, those aren't Republicans. In contrast, there is growing support within the Democratic Party for renewable energy, energy efficiency, CAFE standards, and reduced dependency on foreign oil. The majority of Democrats are already on board, while others are coming around. Unfortunately, the enemies of progress are numerous and powerful. Right here in Virginia, we have eight excellent examples of such enemies ? all Republicans, by the way ? representing us in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Simply stated, these people must be defeated as soon as possible ? November 2006 would be great.  To defeat them, we will need strong Democratic candidates.  Already, several have stepped up to the plate and have strongly articulated a desire to help the environment and to support clean energy. We must encourage this trend by rewarding these candidates at the ballot box.  In the meantime, we must ask the voters of Virginia to demand that their Republican representatives support measures for energy independence, or find themselves looking for new jobs come November 2006.

[UPDATE by Lowell:  The urgency of this issue is highlighted in today's Washington Post, which notes "a hefty 2 percent rise in [U.S.] greenhouse gas emissions, the largest growth in five years," during 2004.  Then there's this, a potential "big thaw" of the permafrost, possibly to as great a depth as 11 feet.  Not good.  That's why we need to reduce our emission of fossil-fuel related greenhouse gases sharply, and we need to do it starting ASAP.]

Comments