« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
February 23, 2006
Re-energizing the debate
In terms of ceremony, a president's state of the union address can serve as a compelling vehicle to launch the political year. In policy terms, however, the constitutionally mandated address often has been rich in rhetoric but weak in substance. That President Bush's address on January 31 placed a great emphasis on energy policy is clear. Whether the substance of the speech matched its ceremony, however, is not.
From the House dais, Bush proclaimed, “we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology.” Under the label of the “Advanced Energy Initiative,” he announced a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research, which would emphasize zero-emission coal plants, solar and wind technology, and nuclear energy. The initiative would also encourage greater research on battery technology, hydrogen, and various types of ethanol for automobile use. Bush stated his ultimate goal was to replace more than 75 percent of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
As a generic political goal, “energy independence” is not new. It has been used as a rallying cry during election seasons since the oil shocks of the 1970s, primarily because it is an easy concept to like. Reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly of the hydrocarbon variety, could fundamentally restructure U.S. relations with many autocratic Arab regimes. If the United States relied less on their petroleum products, it would have less reason to support odious regimes that nurtured virulent anti-Western sentiment and be less vulnerable to political shocks in oil-rich states. Furthermore, if a policy of “energy independence” entailed a shift from hydrocarbon energy sources toward cleaner and more renewable sources, the environmental benefits could be significant. The perception of dwindling oil supplies, greater energy demand from China and India, rising gasoline prices, and a global scarcity of refining capacity makes “energy independence” especially attractive in today's political and economic climate.
For many, however, Bush's emphasis on “energy independence” was curious. The president's professional background includes stints in the petroleum industry, yet he spoke of reducing U.S. oil imports. Some observers questioned his pledge to replace 75 percent of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East. Because only a fifth of U.S. oil imports come from that region, alternative fuels could account for the equivalent of only 15 percent of total oil imports under Bush's proposal. Others pointed out that oil is a fungible commodity; even if the United States bought less from the Middle East, other countries would pick up the slack, and the political and economic conditions there would remain unchanged.
Perhaps the most curious aspect about Bush's emphasis on energy policy was that Congress passed a major energy bill just last summer. Bush had pushed for such a bill since early in his administration, and its passage represented a clear victory for him. Much like the state of the union address, the Republican-sponsored energy bill stressed certain themes of “energy independence.” It provided tax credits for owners of hybrid vehicles, subsidies for providers of renewable energy sources, and tax breaks for those making energy conservation improvements to their homes. But Democratic opponents argued that such initiatives were outweighed by the subsidies provided for fossil fuels, nuclear power, and coal. Such criticism did not stop the bill, however. The House passed it with a vote of 275-156, the Senate did so with a vote of 74-26, and Bush signed the energy bill into law on August 8, 2005.
In the wake of such of such a comprehensive energy bill, then, why did the president feel compelled to emphasize many of the same themes in his state of the union address? One answer, offered mainly by Democrats, is that Bush's emphasis was less than heartfelt, too limited in scope, and reflective of a desire for political insulation from future oil shocks. The administration's proposed budget, revealed since the state of the union address, calls for a $381 million increase in spending on renewable energy technologies. But this figure is 22 percent less than the commitments laid out in last year's energy bill, according to Democratic staff members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the ranking Democrat on the committee, suggested that, "this budget is taking us backwards in important programs in energy efficiency, clean coal, oil and gas, electricity reliability, and distributed energy, just to name a few.”
Another answer holds quite the opposite. The President may be so committed to his energy policy that the need to strengthen it so soon after the passage of the 2005 bill overrode other political concerns. The administration notes that last year's act “is strengthening America's electrical infrastructure, reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy, increasing conservation, and expanding the use of clean renewable energy.” In the past, the Bush administration has continued to pursue legislative agendas long after other administrations would have declared victory and moved on. The administration's multiple (and successful) attempts to secure tax cuts from Congress are an example of such perseverance. “Energy independence” could simply be the latest issue to generate such administration dedication.
Yet another answer is wholly political. Bush has faced approval ratings below 50 percent for some months now, creating a climate inhospitable to bold and risky presidential initiatives. The president's state of the union address accordingly “played it safe” with a variety of micro-initiatives that were difficult to oppose and too small to generate much concern. In addition to his “Advanced Energy Initiative,” the President's address also promoted a “Strong America Leading the World” initiative, an “American Competitiveness Initiative,” and an “Affordable and Accessible Health Care” initiative. Much like his energy proposals, these initiatives are difficult to oppose on principle alone, and thus were painless topics for presidential emphasis.
But when any such proposal meets Congress, principle only goes so far. It will be up to the legislature to nurture or kill Bush's new energy initiative, and much will depend on how aggressively the administration promotes it. The similarities between the state of the union initiative and last year's energy bill may help its prospects, under the logic that Congress could easily adopt proposals so similar to those already passed only a few months ago. But the initiative's similarity to the 2005 energy bill may also harm its prospects. The passage of last year's bill was the result of a long, contentious process. Many legislators and interests remain steadfastly opposed to the 2005 energy bill even today and are willing to fight any attempts to strengthen its provisions.
On the surface, Congress faces a dichotomous choice. Does it advance an energy agenda it has already (and acrimoniously) approved, or does it do nothing and leave the nation's energy policy untouched for another decade or more? The choice appears stark, but it need not be. If Congress wishes to continue this year's trend of asserting itself toward the executive, it could pursue different, creative, or otherwise unresolved paths toward the goal of “energy independence.” Drilling in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge and modifying federal fuel economy standards are two contentious issues that have yet to be resolved. On the demand side of the energy equation, efforts to promote conservation have not yet been fully explored, nor have free-market approaches to promote renewable energy such as carbon trading or carbon taxes.
So there exists room for legislative creativity on the topic of “energy independence.” Genuine “energy independence” may be an unrealistic goal in today's global market, but reducing U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources is not. However sincere his sentiment, the mere fact that Bush emphasized the issue in his state of the union address indicates a willingness to keep “energy independence” in the public square. Congress should not shy away from his challenge.
Foreign Policy Association, 23 February 2006
Posted by Daniel Widome at 06:53 PM to U. S. Politics
