APRIL 2010: 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF EARTH DAY

   An Economic and Political Perspective

  Henry S. Cole, Ph.D.

The 40th anniversary of Earth Day happened last week. I participated in the first Earth Day as a young professor and environmental activist back in1970. We had high hopes. People were jumping on the eco-wagon like there was no tomorrow. Well here we are tomorrow, four decades later. And we've had a busy Earth Month. 

President Obama announced his plans to open up more coastal waters to the oil industry,

 n a stroke of bad timing for the President’s policy, one of BP’s big oil rigs exploded and sunk the    Gulf of Mexico (on Earth Day). The resulting oil slick expanded rapidly week and threatens estuaries and fish and shrimp industries in four states. See ABC TV video.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the rig had no remote shut-off switch used in other oil-producing nations  U.S. regulators don’t require them. On Thursday, the head of the Coast Guard’s efforts, Mary Landry said that the situation is deteriorating and the spill may wind up being one of the worst in history.

The good news. After nine long years, the Interior Department finally approved a 130-turbine wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod providing a real boost to the U.S. offshore wind industry. See NY Times coverage; The U.S. has lots of offshore wind. 

But there are other news in the making that may ultimately have a more important impact on the future of the environment. Consider the Senate the revelations emerging from the Senate subcommittee hearing on the impact of Goldman Sachs on the financial system and the broader economy. Thanks to financial experts like Simon Johnson (See Johnson and Kwak’s best-selling 13 Bankers and their Blog, Baseline Scenario) and this week’s Senate hearing (See the video), we can see how the reckless speculation and avarice of the Wall Street investment banks contributed the financial meltdown of 2008 and the worst recession since the Great Depression. According to a recent CNN Report: the Bailout Tracker our federal government has already spent 3 trillion dollars and committed 11 trillion dollars to bailout the “too-big-to-fails” (TBTFs). Now the Mega-banks are again making billions while the 15 million Americans are unemployed and millions have lost their homes.

The Wall Street fiasco is an outgrowth of the deregulation that started under President Reagan and continues to flourish. Environmental regulation and enforcement was especially hard hit under Reagan and George W. Bush. 

Hopefully Congress will enact legislation strong enough to rein in the TBTFs that profit by betting against the rest of us. However, ultimately, the real solution is for Congress to ensure that no corporation is powerful enough to wreck havoc on our economy or on the environment.

The juxtaposition of these stories points to a monumental fork in the road – not just a choice between renewables and fossil fuels, but a deeper choice about the way that decisions are made and for whose benefit. It’s about whether mega-corporations or “We the People” will mold the future.  

If permitted, large energy corporations will not only “drill, baby, drill,” but will attempt to squeeze oil from shales and tar sands regardless of the environmental consequences. Big Energy also wants a free hand to reopen uranium mines to fuel a new generation of nuclear power plants with big government subsidies regardless of the environmental and financial risks. Note that the President’s energy plan includes tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantees to entice reluctant banks to invest in nuclear power.

The CEO of one of these companies is likely to use the following strategy (1) use political power to regulatory concessions; (2) get big government subsidies (3) make big profits but saddle the tax paying public with the risks (4) suggest that your firm may leave town if you don’t get what you want. The latter is especially scary to a governor in an economically depressed state with high unemployment. So he or she instructs the head of the state environmental department and the Senator to go easy on the guy with the big smoke stack. Somehow the threat of losing another 500 jobs seems a bit more compelling than a few more cancers or a melting glacier on a far off mountain.

Finally, one should ask what if the trillions used for bailouts had been invested directly in the small, local businesses and community-oriented banks. What if we invested to help state and local governments solve their budget crises?  Imagine if even a small part of the $$$ were invested to boost wind and solar industries and to restore damaged ecosystems. Then we might just be able to celebrate fully on the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day. 

 Please join the conversation with a post

We present President Obama the Flip Flop of the Year Award for his remarkable switch on offshore drilling.

In response to our April Fools Day parody of President Obama's speech announcing a big expansion in offshore drilling, We received a reminder from an anonymous subscriber reminding us that Candidate Obama opposed basically the same plan when it was proposed by McCain and Palin as in "drill baby drill!" Here is a quote from candidate Obama's speech in Jacksonville, FL on June 8, 2008.


"This is a proposal that would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off needed investments in clean, renewable energy. It's not the kind of change that the American people are looking for."

If this is hard to believe, go the linked website and read or see a video of his speech in 2008. He blasts offshore drilling.


You may be interested in several related stories that illustrate the problems with offshore drilling: 

• The Diane Rehm show, April 1, 2010. One issue discussed is the need for additional refining capacity (currently at 98 % capacity); what east coast city will want another oil refinery?

• Local opposition to drilling, refining and transportation facilities is likely to be intense and to create bitter divides between opponents and supporters. Case in point: 

          Culver City challenges new oil drilling

A Texas company wants new wells in the Inglewood Oil Field, which lies along the city's    border and already has 1,463 active, idle and abandoned wells. By Louis Sahagun, April 3, 2010
See also yesterday's article on the poor safety record of oil refineries:  Study Shows US Refineries Have Bad Safety Record: Report shows US oil refineries have bad safety record as blast kills 4 in Washington state, 




By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer, 

WASHINGTON April 2, 2010 (AP)

 

President's April First Clarification on Offshore Drilling and Energy Policy

Early this morning we received this advance copy of the opening comments that President Obama will give at a press briefing late this afternoon. I'm sure you'll feel relieved. 

April 1, 2010: White House Rose Garden

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much for coming out on this beautiful day (Applause.)  Please have a seat. My speech yesterday that announced the opening up our coastal waters to offshore drilling drew a great deal of heat. Today, I am here to clear up any confusion I may have caused. Yesterday’s speech was meant to be an April Fools Joke. As a candidate I promised to safeguard the environment, and I mean to do so. Unfortunately, the White House schedulers thought yesterday was April first. Apparently they thought that March only had 30 days.

Photo: The President's April Fools Speech mistakenly made on March 31. The speech was given in a hangar at Andrews Air Force (MD). The fighter jet is the Green Hornet, which will run on 50 % biofuels,

So today, I am proud to announce our real energy policy – no jokes about it. Let me say it loudly and unequivocally.

1. There will be no additional offshore drilling for oil during my administration. The risks are much greater than the benefits.
2. My announced multi-billion dollar loan guarantees for nuclear power was another bad joke. Lindsey, my good friend from S. Carolina, you wouldn’t want to mess up Myrtle Beach, would you?
3. Clean coal is another bad joke and is off the table. No more mountain-top mining. Senator Byrd – you’ll have all the wind power you want for those long ridges.
4. Gas mileage for vehicles – that wasn’t part of the April Fools Day fiasco -- they stay.

 

This energy policy decision is based on our needs in three critical areas: economics, the environment, and national security

Economics: Millions of jobs in our coastal states depend on tourism and fishery. No one will eat fish that tastes like a can of Mobil 5W30. And no one likes to sun themselves on a beach covered with oil goo. Then there is nuclear power. If the banks won’t provide the loans for nukes why should the tax payers? These things are expensive, take years to build and if there’s an accident who shells out the billions to clean up the mess? Sounds like too big to fail to me.

The Environment:  Spending so much on coal, oil and nuclear simply encourages their use; we build the very parts of the economy that are most unsustainable. And in doing so we sap vital resources from wind and solar energy that contribute to the solution of our environmental problems. Let me say something else about nuclear power. As we all know, the high level wastes stay deadly for hundreds of centuries. I asked our Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to see if he could find a governor who wanted a permanent nuclear repository in their state. He told me he got a few unnamed takers, but only if we agreed to bail out their deficits for the next ten thousand years.

Then there is an issue that not many talk about. My good friends at the Southwest Research and Information Center have reminded me that hundreds of abandoned uranium mines have not been cleaned up and present health risks in many Navajo communities. In addition to this, Navajo communities now have to face proposed new uranium solution mining that threatens the only source of drinking water for 10,000 to 15,000 people living in the Eastern Navajo Agency in northwestern New Mexico. Besides my daughters made me watch Avatar. (See http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/navajo/environmental.html)

And on biofuels. Biofuels won’t work if they require huge government subsidies, and if they require massive application of fertilizers and pesticides that harm the environment – or if they promote the destruction of rain forests and other critical ecosystems.

National Security: Our generals keep telling us that our dependence on foreign sources of oil is a threat to our national security. I share their call for energy independence. We all want it. But let’s talk about real energy independence. Do we want to shift our dependence to large multi-national corporations who are only interested in big centralized solutions that suck capital out of our communities and our domestic economy? Surely it would be better to invest in energy solutions that spread the wealth to communities across the country. Solutions like energy efficiency which lowers costs for families and businesses; wind power – there are lots of family farms in windy places. The experts our telling us that our nation is beginning to lag behind in the development of renewables; we are losing out to Europe and China and we are losing out important opportunities to create millions of jobs. The bottom line: without energy security, there is no national security.

Thank you very much;  I will now take your questions.

President: Yes, Sam

Sam Donaldson: Mr. President, Happy April Fools Day. 

Please submit your questions and comments for the President by clicking on post! We will send them to the White House.