America is Losing the Energy Debate

by Richard Holcomb

Jon Chait of The New Republic has no good words for the Democratic Congressional leadership in regarding to recent debates on energy: "To recount how things went so badly: The Democrats' initial instinct was to revert to populism. They began wailing about the rapacity of "speculators." "Without regard for anything but their own profits, we've seen that--it seems the traders are the ones bidding up the prices," Senator Harry Reid crowed last month. "They keep buying futures to inflate the price, and they keep making more and more money." There was, however, a problem with this case: It simply wasn't true. Speculators weren't responsible for rising prices at the pump. And, beyond that, the public simply didn't believe this diagnosis. So the Democrats made their first adjustment. They began to broaden their populist diatribe and started attacking the likes of Exxon and the rest of the big oil companies. But, by that point, they were already losing the argument.

Faced with grim polling numbers, Democrats made their second adjustment. They began to compromise with the drilling plans that they had just attacked. After Obama shifted his stance on drilling, Nancy Pelosi encouraged vulnerable Democratic congressmen up for reelection to do the same, according to House aides. This may help salve their political woes in the short-term, but it is a position that will vitiate their arguments over the long haul. To ultimately prevail politically, not to mention drive down energy costs and forestall climate change, Democrats will have to argue that the only true path to "energy independence" is independence from oil itself. That is, however much we may rely on our own oil sources, the market for oil is global, not national, and the growing thirst for oil from places like China and India won't be diminishing any time soon. So drilling may provide a few more U.S. barrels of oil, but this increase in supply will be minuscule compared to the cresting demand. Instead of generating a true solution to the coming crisis, the Republican energy plan further shackles Americans to the whims of the global oil market."

Both parties are doing more sloganeering than hard-nosed thinking on this admittedly complex issue. Most Americans could care less who gets the credit for taking effective action, but we don't need any more evidence that this issue demands urgent, comprehensive action. The recent proposal by the "Gang of Ten" (five Democratic and five Republican Senators) is a sensible starting place but so far leading conservatives in the Congress simply can't bear the idea of having the most profitable corporations in the world, i.e., the oil companies, help bear the burden of reform. So both sides bear some blame---and moral responsibility---for dealing with this issue pragmatically.