In Defense of Obama's Dirty Energy Rhetoric

grist.org

(This is the third in a three-part series -- part one, part two -- but it summarizes the others, so you can probably skip 'em.)

Obama is stuck in a peculiar political moment. In substantive terms, he knows that our dire climate and energy situation requires huge and possibly wrenching changes to drive the country away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy and efficiency. He has proposed climate and energy plans that, while short of what will ultimately be necessary, are substantially more ambitious than any in presidential history, more ambitious than even some of his supporters seem to realize.

To provide moderate cover for that green agenda, and as part of the attempt to flip a few key red states, Obama is dropping all kinds of dirty-energy buzzwords. But a close look at the language he uses reveals that his support for things like nuclear and "clean coal" is framed in conditional terms that, if taken seriously, pose high and possibly insuperable barriers to those technologies becoming market competitive.

If you oppose nuclear power because it cannot solve the problems of "public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation" in a cost-effective way, then there's no reason to object to a politician saying he'll support nuclear if and only if it can solve those problems. Based on what you believe, that's tantamount to opposition.

The key gambit is to focus on performance standards -- results -- rather than joining any tribe or cheering any team. The empirical, pragmatic approach is substantively correct and keeps Obama out of the culture-war fights over individual technologies. It has environmentalists attacking him from the left, which serves to make him look more moderate to the rest of the political world. It has given him plausible deniability in the face of Republican attacks -- their "Dr. No" gambit didn't stick. It has given him an "all of the above" pitch that appeals to low-information voters. Meanwhile he's planning to implement strong emission standards and make hundreds of billions in green investments.

Pretty damn savvy, if you ask me.

Comments

[SolarPowerGuy]

"...a close look at the language [Obama] uses reveals that his support for things like nuclear and 'clean coal' is framed in conditional terms that, if taken seriously, pose high and possibly insuperable barriers to those technologies becoming market competitive."

Hope. How I have learned to hate it. Why? Because Democrats have dashed it, every time it has been granted to them.

The 1974 Congress, which went strongly Democratic in reaction to Nixon, had the guts to cut off funding for the Vietnam War. That was the last time the Democrats really stood up for something.

Since then, we've had (to take just two examples):

Bill Clinton, who caved in every time the Republicans in Congress sulked a bit (even in 1993-4, when Democrats controlled Congress); and the 2000-2008 Senate Democrats, who have held filibuster power the entire time, but who are too afraid of their own shadows to use it for anything. NOT ONE THING!

I would truly like to believe that Obama is lying. What an awkward state that is! I want to believe that he is presently downplaying his more progressive foreign policy and energy policy, in order to slip past the Republican propaganda machine, which would no doubt label such things as "surrender" and "radical."

These ARE Democrats we're talking about. Prepare to be underwhelmed -- once again.

[research]

Lying? no. Pandering to win? Yes.

Obama has to get elected. You can't change anything from the sidelines. Obama didn't lie. If you can show him a truly clean coal cycle, he will be for it. As will I.

To compare Obama conditional support to gain votes, to the GOP conservative mass of lies deception and democracy subverting, is not fair.

I see a truly transformational leader in Obama.

I have great hope.

We know the alternative is McCain's Madness.

[radmul]

I do not understand why we should think better of him because he is being disingenuous and trying to deceive the ill informed. He is either lying or proposing bad policy take your pick?

[research]

Do you have a truly clean coal energy system?

If so, We'll use it.

Otherwise....

[TommyMcCarthy]

I never would have guessed Dave Roberts would fold on coal.

Sure Obama is being shifty on nukes and coal.......and sure we're still going to vote for him.........

Where else are we going to go.......Palin? .....Nader?....

Doen't mean we have to agree......and it SURE doesn't mean we need to PRAISE such dissembleing.
TM

[andresfusion]

Great article, completely agree with your clean coal assessment. However, when it comes to nuclear power "If you oppose nuclear power because it cannot solve the problems of "public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation" in a cost-effective way". Actually the new generation of reactors made great leaps toward making nuclear a great option and addressing many of your concern. But the industry has mismanage the public right to know and educating the public. In France people have a more knowledgeable understanding regarding nuclear power and have embrace it making them one of the greenest countries and the biggest exporter of electricity in europe.

Two great websites:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659839296769061.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2087.cfm

[AllAmericanAmericanBoy]

Nuclear power will never be cheap and nuclear waste will never be innocuous.

In the face of truly green alternatives, nuclear power will never be the answer, unless the question is, "How can we channel more public money into the pockets of Halliburton and General Electric and transfer the alarming costs of cleanup to someone else?"

[andresfusion]

First, Halliburton is a producer of oil and gas, not nuclear. Secondly, France has the cheapest electricity in europe, nuclear power plants are very expensive but their operational costs are extremely small, therefore over the long run nuclear reactors are very profitable and will create many jobs; all the while producing electricity for hundred of thousands.

Nuclear technology its going to keep advancing and all over the world there is a nuclear renaissance, but here in the states irrational fear of a safe and proven technology is holding us back.
If we really want to drastically reduce our CO2 footprint we need the baseload power of nuclear to complement the intermittent power of renewables.

[AverageTodd]

Yes, this is pragmatic. I just hope that four four years from now the Republicans don't call it lying.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

I agree with the post in full.

I believe what is important here is the overdue elevation of the policy debate to an all-inclusive level of all the pros and cons of each and every potential energy source.

What we've had previously is myopic camps of solar-good, nuclear-bad, oil-good, oil-bad, etc.

A fully developed matrix, if you will, of all the pros and cons -- including the national security impacts of exposing ourselves to future oil wars -- that results in a cohesive energy policy is long overdue.

And how about some patriotic conservation? Not only are we the world's energy gluttons, but, for example, 10% better fuel economy will dwarf the benefit of another Alaskan oil field.

Save, baby, save.

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

Hey McCain wants to build 48 Nuclear power plants, but how the waste? The Yucatan mountain is not ready to stores nuclear waste, plus we need to get away from waste that will last far beyond our life's 10 fold. Especially in light that most facilities aren't prepared for terrorist attacks.

[SolarPowerGuy]

It's "Yucca Mountain", which is located in Nevada.

The Mexican government might not appreciate the implications of "Yucatan" mountain in a sentence about American nuclear waste...

[djelimon]

O is a pragmatist, and results oriented.

Clean coal, as defined by him, doesn't exist yet.

But if they can make clean coal real, then why not use it?

Basically he's calling their bluff in a non-confrontational way. He knows the clean coal people are full of it, but by playing along they can't say he's against them without admitting they are full of it.

[munki]

My ex... a white hard core Republican is trying to brainwash my children in the City, you know...
Beverly Hills do not understand what B. Obama is saying... I told my children to be open and so on.... I know, I am trying to tell them "for America and American"... hard, but i do not intend to fight... they are too young,,, I am not going to fight because my colleagues of professional women have switched from GOP like myself...Hey, my IQ is above 180... I am no stupid, but I like to see what Obama/Biden wants... as a recent former Republican... tired of my former party... no hear policy....
I used to listen to Limbaugh... pleased let you know... You will be deleted from my car radio channel.... adios...as I am not a racist... I am an American!!!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Worth a repeat, an excerpt from Faulkneresque prose: "Hey, my IQ is above 180... I am no stupid"

[Halsey]

munki..good for you..putting down the kool-aid that blurrs that nice high I.Q....

Clean coal...(pigs fly)...but I KNOW Obama has to use these terms...(doh!)...to get Montana, Kentucky (maybe)..and West virginia (maybe)... did anyone notice in the last debate..McCain said...(paraphrasing)...hell...the FRENCH use nuclear...we could build many plants right away..

oh yeah...really rush those...(hey..let's put the army corp of engineers in charge)...then..sell that at Three Mile Island..or better yet..Chernolbyl....yeah..hastily build nuclear power plants with NO plan on what to do with the spent rods...must LESS the cooling water...jeezuz...

A few well-placed..COMPLETELY safe (oxymoron?)..nuclear plants might be needed...just not willy nilly.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Masterful.
(Apologies to munki for my snark below.)

[avinash]

Pretty savvy indeed.

Only today I heard on the radio that McCain is accusing Obama of having a hidden agenda.
For once in this campaign I am hoping he absolutely right. I hope Obama has an ultra radical, hidden agenda on energy. No more nuclear disasters, clean coal fantasies, hordes of zombies dancing Drill Baby Drill, short lived ethanol fuels, or the Pickens plan drivel.

The key word in the real solution is Sustainability that Gore is advocating.

[egal]

It is a smart move, and we appreciate people who are more informed certifying how Obama's choices are both practical and idealistic. As he has done with such issues as the bailout vote, Obama backs not the inevitably-imperfect positions or plans or beliefs, but instead, is supporting specific criteria important and universal enough to appeal to all openminded persons who pay the least attention.

Obama is, thankfully, supporting what our people need, what our nation needs, what our environment needs, making the concerns important to our people important to him without backing any specific means of attaining these benefits or banning any specific methods. He works toward and encourages what also works toward our needs instead of working toward political agendas, encouraging any means to be considered but inhibiting the potential for harm from the means that get us to an open-ended result that is better than where we are now.

[IWOA]

http://www.independentwomenofamerica.org/ has some amazing short videos you can use to convince anyone on the fence that they should vote for Obama.

[bunzbenz]

My Family is praying for Obama's grandmother...out fervent wishes are that she witnesses her grandson's election as the next President of the United States of America. In these times of stress, Obama's supporters are grateful that Michelle and his wonderful girls are in his life. May God bless!

[IsThatRight]

I was looking around as I ususally do and ran across what is now the most appauling story I have read this entire campaign.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/17764161/detail.html

When all is said and done, there will be civil unrest in this country. No matter who wins this election. McCain/Palin are so hell bent on winning at any cost they aren't looking down the road at the big picture.

[klevenstein]

I call it brilliant.

People say "you just hope his actions will be better than the policies he has stated".

No... I just listen to his statements carefully (actually, I read most of them carefully). Plus, I have read his books (which are not ghost-written).

If this man delivers anything short of extraordinary performance as a POTUS, I will be truly disappointed. That won't happen, though: my gut is a flawless judge of character.

I expect O to push an agenda that is as pragmatically progressive as possible without alienating moderates, and I will enthusiastically encourage him toward this. At a minimum, I would expect every Bush policy to be rolled back to its pre-Bush state, but I hope for the pre-Reagan state.