Let’s Go On Offense.
There is no single issue with political and human ramifications as broad as energy independence, nor is there any one issue which puts as much at stake for American voters and interests. Our current energy policy endangers America’s national security, environmental safety and public health, while also leaving consumers out to dry.
From FrontierPAC.org:
There’s a reason why consumers see gas and utility prices go up year after year, while energy companies post record profits. It’s the same reason why we let Saudi oil kingpins influence our foreign policy, while at the same time looking for ways to drill in our own wildlife preserves. The same reason we see market-rigging like the Enron scandal followed up by additional deregulation…
We all know that the reason mentioned above is our failure to craft a cogent national energy policy. Voters all over the US–and especially in Western states–are beginning to learn this as well. Let’s make sure they do so on OUR terms…
[More below the fold]
[This begins a series of Frontier PAC diaries intended to help develop our aggressive Democratic branding narrative for 2006.]
1. We Have the Technology NOW.
So, to put it simply, the problem is politics.
When thinking about American energy policy in terms of a “national greatness” project, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that we need to develop new technologies or cultivate new markets for renewable energy to be viable. In Western states–and nationally, in aggregate–this is entirely untrue. According to a seminal study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Oregon, Montana, and Nevada–to name just a few–could each produce more than 400% of the energy they currently consume with cheaply available, commecrcally viable windfarm technology.
2. The Oil Companies Own Congress.
Since 1990, multinational oil companies have given $100 million to Republican lawmakers. And it’s not surprising that the Congress they’ve bought has failed to deliver Americans a sound energy policy.
In fact, our current energy policy, with increased oil and coal subsidies paired with attacks on already scant federal budget allotments for renewable energy, is drastically subverting the will of the market: it is not cheaper or easier for us to rely on fossil fuels, and rigging our energy policy is becoming ever more important for those who that dismays.
3. A Smarter Energy Policy Will Put Big $ Into Rural America.
Simply enacting a 20% renewable energy standard would save American consumers over $27 billion dollars–and that’s just on utility bills (see the study linked above). Building and maintaining renewable energy facilities will create hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs and pour tax revenues into rural counties and municipalities. The best part is that the West will lead: Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona–these are states which currently rank among the poorest in the nation, but their abundance of renewable energy resources means that they’ll be the center of the innovation and economic growth created by a bold and intelligent energy policy.
The Contrast:
Energy policy sheds significant light on the underlying values driving each party and serves to bring exceptional clarity to the choice facing voters. It’s obvious: Republicans serve the interests of oil companies, while Democrats fight for families, small businesses, jobs and conservation.
But we can’t make this argument without the right candidates. It comes down to choosing populism over big corporations. This fight isn’t for Democrats who covet campaign dollars from big oil, nor is it for Democrats who are afraid to take a swipe at the GOP’s corporate jugular. But for Democrats with the courage to spare voters any added bullshit, it’s a fight with a major prize.
Join us at http://frontierpac.org
Tips/Comments/Feedback?
Cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos. Please recommend them all if you want this discussion to grow.
this issue has more resonance that any other single issue:
“We wouldn’t be in Iraq if we didn’t have to worry about the safety and availability of Middle Eastern oil.”
Almost everyone agrees.
And, with the hard-money machine the Dems busted ass to build in 2004 (one of our few unequivocal successes of the last few years), we don’t “need” that corporate hush money that sustained the DLC for so long. I’ve yet to figure out what we could possibly lose by hammering this one home.
I don’t see bushco doing a dam thing about oil/oil prices anytime soon. Gas prices and the energy policy I hope anyway will start to hurt the republicans badly…I know we’ve been saying that for years but maybe this time the perfect storm really is coming.
Living here in central Ca. in the middle of oilfields where our gas is some of the highest in the nation is really starting to piss people off, regular people who aren’t democrats.
On a side note I’ll never forget that the Gropenator almost singlehandly promoted Hummer’s into the popularity they enjoy and to think he gets a massive tax break on his is an added insult.(so he doesn’t go broke I guess and can ‘put food on his children) Given the gas situation here I think that should be one of the big talking points against him in the coming governor’s election.
Maybe promoting jobs, jobs, and more jobs through better energy policies will finally get people excited about something very positive for the good of everyone.
I agree with the policy alternative, but not necessarily the strategy.
It’s obvious: Republicans serve the interests of oil companies, while Democrats fight for families, small businesses, jobs and conservation.
That statement is inflammatory, and inaccurate. Carter didn’t get the synfuels bill through on democratic party votes alone. And Reagan didn’t get the huge DoD budget increase in his first term with Republicans alone. And if it weren’t for a “few good reeps”, Clinton would have been impeached.
Much as I’d like to agree with you, I can’t shitcan 51% of the American public, nor an entire party, because of the actions of their leadership. (If that was the case I’d have to change from democrat to independent).
Go on offense, yes. Present alternatives, yes. But we gain nothing by being dyed-in-the-wool partisans. They’ve managed to frame every single one of their arguments in black/white, us/them contexts, and we’ve bitten every time.
Go with the plan as one supported by a “majority of the American people” [provable as you note]. Further, state that the plan is “supported by members on both sides of the aisle” [trickier, but also provable]. Describe the economic and social benefits: distributed, smaller manufacturing plants; labor intensive = more jobs; raw materials available here in the U.S.; energy reduction = lower deficits; and on and on.
And you don’t have to say “Republican” once.
Notice each of your points includes an economic argument. I say it’s a natural pairing with the poverty issue. Why not “kill two birds”?
Frame it this way:
Economics of saving people money, decreasing their dependence on corporate native and foreign oil while creating an economic boost in (largely) impoverished rural areas through construction of alternative energy facilities as well as creating co-operative energy suppliers. Can help the poorest in our nation directly by saving them money on fuel bills and providing jobs, and indirectly by increasing their autonomy and emphasizing community.
None of this should be federal, other than as an incentive program or tax-break initiative to states and municipalities. However, it needs to be emphasized as a state/local (rights) issue because specific energy innovation needs to be tailored to geography and geology as well as population and anticipated useages.
Solar, water, wind, tidal, geothermal energy sources; electric, hybrid, alcohol, hydrogen energy products and accesories add up (if someone cares to do a projection study) to billions of dollars to be generated in the economy.
Anticipating opposition on grounds of lost jobs in oil industry; opposition from auto manufacturers on grounds of prohibitive expense and “unpopularity” of weaning off petrochemicals; an (it goes w/o saying?) the Big Money counterpunch from Petroleum America and associates.
How to counter?
Whip up the traditional American pride in innovation, problem solving, independence, and entrepreneural opportunity; add stimulation for investors; combine w/ a savvy PR campaign; and frost it all with environmental friendliness and more hopeful future for children and the planet, and you’ve got a policy and formula for success.
Here’s RFK’s formula:
KENNEDY: One of the things that frustrates environmentalists is this argument that we’ve got to go into sacred places like ANWR to fulfill our energy needs. We’re not saying you can never go into them. We’re saying: Let’s try to get the cheapest, most accessible forms of energy first. Let’s start making investments in conservation before we exploit areas that impose a huge cost on future generations.
Here’s how you do it. If we raise fuel-efficiency standards by just one mile per gallon, we save two ANWRs full of oil over the projected 50-year life of the fields. If we raise them 2.7 mpg, that’s more than all the oil we import from Iraq and Kuwait combined. If we raise standards by 8 mpg, we don’t have to import one drop of Persian Gulf oil into this country. Fuel efficiency is an untapped resource. It’s cheap oil.
From a debate with Christie Whitman just before the miserable 2004 election in Outdoor Magazine