Tweet At the conclusion of the GOP debate, Wolf Blitzer thanked CNN‘s partners, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. This partnership explains the framing of the debate on energy as “Burn Baby Burn” or “Drill Baby Drill.”
No questions were asked on the potential for renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro. Nor were questions asked on climate change or on the pollution and cleanup costs from coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.
Energy policy and climate are linked, and could be addressed in one question:
This summer people in Texas experienced an extended drought and 100 days in which the temperature was over 100 degrees (CBS). Is this normal? Is this the ‘new normal?’ If this is triggered by burning so much carbon based fuel in the last 200 years that we have elevated the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide from about 260 parts per million in 1800 to about 390 ppm today (350.org), and we have burned mountains of coal, lakes of oil and gas, is it prudent to continue to burn coal, oil, and gas, or should we embark on a plan to transition to non-fossil-carbon sources of energy, such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc? And if so, how quickly?
This could also be asked in a national security context:
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, identified energy and climate change among the constraints which, in his words, “could place the United States at a strategic turning point…. Glaciers are melting at a faster rate, causing water supplies to diminish in Asia. Rising sea levels could lead to a mass migration and displacement similar to what we saw in Pakistan’s floods last year. And other shifts could reduce the arable land needed to feed a growing population in Africa, for example. Scarcity of water, food and space could create not only a humanitarian crisis but create conditions that could lead to failed states, instability and, potentially, radicalization.” (NRDC / WWF) What does this mean for the USA in the next 4 to 8 years and what should the President do about it?
Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute once highlighted the value of efficiency saying “the cheapest unit of energy is the one you don’t have to buy.” He termed this the ‘Nega-watt.’ If the ‘Negawatt’ is the cheapest unit of energy, then next cheapest unit of energy is the ‘Nega-Fuel-Watt,’ (here) the one obtained without consuming fuel. What would a transition to fuel and pollution free energy mean for the economy? Would it make us more competitive? Less competitive?
Environmentalists like Vice President Al Gore and Bill McKibben and businessmen like Eric Schmidt and Richard Branson have argued that we should move to 100% renewable energy in 10 or 20 years. We are now seeing a ‘Moore’s Law’ on the price – performance ratio of photovoltaic solar. Several companies have announced technical breakthroughs in design and manufacturing that promise to increase efficiencies and cut costs. California and New Jersey lead the United States in solar. So the question is not “Can we transition to clean energy?” Rather it is “How can we transition to clean energy? How quickly? What would it mean for the economy? What will it mean for national security?
Other questions I would ask the candidates,
Rick Perry said he would privatize the TSA to get rid of the unions, altho it is hard to see that this would lower costs, except by eliminating benefits and hiring uneducated workers or illegal aliens. Ron Paul might get rid of the TSA but he wouldn’t privatize it. Similarly, Gov. Perry might privatize prisons, Rep. Paul would legalize drugs, end the ‘war’ on drugs, and, presumably, set free people held in prison on minor drug charges, shutting down some prisons – saving the taxpayers money. The questions are “How exactly does privatizing government agencies save money?” and “What agencies do we need?”
Many members of Congress have signed Grover Norquist’s pledge (here) to “oppose tax increases.” In “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich, Warren Buffett argue that his marginal tax rate is lower than his secretary’s, and that this is unfair and bad policy. Other countries in Europe and Asia use tax revenues to support industries, education, and health care. While cutting taxes in time of a surplus may be a good idea, how do we finance national security, infrastructure, and other initiatives without tax revenues? Which taxes are legitimate? Any? If taken literally, does this pledge conflict with the oath of office (here) to uphold the Constitution?
Ron Paul consistently asks ‘What is the purpose of government?’ Should the government build schools and roads, i.e. infrastructure? Where does it end? Should the government mandate that people buy health insurance? Mitt Romney wants to partially privatize the Veterans Health Administration, VHA, and give veterans vouchers to use to buy health care. (See Paul Krugman’s column, ‘Vouchers for Veterans’, here). Rather than gut it, perhaps we should expand the Veteran’s Health Administration into the ‘Citizens Health Administration’ to provide health care for all citizens, tourists, guest workers? Lincoln, who defined our government as “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” might say yes.
If it is legitimate for the government to operate agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, the VHA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and for local government to operate local police departments; if it is, therefore, legitimate to protect the nation from external threats and to protect the citizens and their property from miscreants who would point a gun at their heads and say something like ‘Your money or your life!’ and if it is reasonable for the FBI and the Defense and Intelligence communities to secure water systems from terrorists who might engage in biological warfare, is it reasonable and legitimate for the government to operate an executive agency with police authority to protect the citizens and the environment from pollution, from people who, while in the name of making money, rather than ideology, engage in activities in which the long term consequences include damaging the biosphere and making people sick? That would be the EPA. And that would be a call for more regulation and strict enforcement to prevent events such as the Kingston Tennessee coal ash flood of Dec. 2008, the Deepwater Horizon incident of 2010. If Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and FBI are legitimate, why not the EPA?
Regarding the ‘Arab Spring,’
The questions from the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation seemed to be ‘When should we go to war with Iran?’ and ‘Should we expect Israel to attack Iran?’ These questions pre-suppose that someone should attack Iran. Is that really a good idea? It seems clear to me, here at Popular Logistics, that the war in Iraq, which cost over 4,000 American lives, tens of thousands of wounded veterans, and $1.0 trillion, created a regional power vacuum which was filled by Achmadinejad and the Mullahs of Iran. But today Iran and Syria can’t feed their people, and the countries are unstable, particularly Syria. The United States worked within NATO to support the people on the ground in Libya, with the result that Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power. Recep Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey – our ally in NATO – has urged Bashar Assad to step down (Wash Post). How should we engage with the people of Iran and Syria? How should we support pro-democracy movements in the Middle East? How do we work with allies in the Middle East, including Israel and Turkey to help them maintain their stability in the face of instability in Egypt, Syria, the Palestinian territories?
If the process of democratization in the Middle East began with the election of Hamas, a non-democratic movement which uses terrorism to advance its foreign policy goals, how can we support democratization when non-democratic forces which use terror win elections? And we give a tremendous amount of aid to Egypt, $1.1 Billion a year, most in the form of military aid. The questions are: “What should the ‘Arab Spring’ mean for American-Egyptian, American-Israeli, American-Persian relations?” and “What should the ‘Arab Spring’ mean for the relations between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and her neighbors?”
Finally,
I would ask Mitt Romney “How could you strap a dog to the roof of the car for a 12 hour drive from Boston to Ontario?” and “Who cleaned the poop off the roof?” (Time Magazine report).
—
Oath of Office for members of the House of Representatives, here:
“I, __, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Norquist Pledge, here:
I, __, pledge to the taxpayers of the __ district of the state of ___, and the the American people that I will:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal tax rates for individuals and / or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by furthor reducing tax rates.
Norquist home pages, here and here.