A Bipartisan Environment?

by Chuck Hall

As yet another record heat wave sweeps over the United States, I find myself flabbergasted at the fact that concern for the environment is looked upon as a partisan issue. If global warming continues unabated, it won’t just be the Democrats, or the Republicans, who suffer the consequences.

I’m also frustrated at the actions of those who claim to be environmentalists, yet take puzzling actions. A recent example would be Senator Ted Kennedy’s opposition of the Cape Cod wind energy farm. This wind farm would be constructed five miles offshore, yet Senator Kennedy seems to think it would damage his property values. This ‘not in my backyard’ attitude is not the way to solve environmental problems.

Another example would be former Vice President Al Gore. While he has done much to educate the world on the dangers of global warming, the only personal lifestyle change he has made seems to be the purchase of carbon offsets to fund his lavish lifestyle. Carbon offsets are simply a way of passing a hot potato. They do little or nothing towards eliminating the ‘hot potato’ of carbon emissions in the first place.

Consider also that although we possess the technology to convert to alternative fuels and other alternative energy sources, we have a sitting Republican president who has a heavily vested interest in Big Oil, and it becomes readily apparent that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle who could do a lot more to help the environment. 

While many pundits in Washington excuse their inaction on environmental policies by claiming that switching to alternative fuel sources would be too expensive, the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org) recently conducted a study to determine the true economic impact of alternative energy. This study used a figure of “20% by 2020,” meaning that they assumed a goal of having 20% of the energy in the U.S. generated by alternative sources by the year 2020. Using a model from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) examined the long-term effects that a national 20 percent by 2020 standard would have on the economy and the environment. Some of the findings of that study included:

• Job Creation - 185,000 new jobs from renewable energy development 
• Economic Development - $66.7 billion in new capital investment, $25.6 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $2 billion in new local tax revenues 
• Consumer Savings - $10.5 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (growing to $31.8 billion by 2030) 
• Climate Solutions - Reductions in global warming pollution equal to taking 36.4 million cars off the road
  

(If you would like to see a breakdown of this analysis, you can download the studies from: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/cashing-in.html).

Clearly, alternative energy sources are a win-win situation. By switching to alternative sources, we can stimulate the economy while protecting the environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. All that remains is to develop the bipartisan political will to do so.

Either that, or we can continue to spend our fuel dollars in parts of the world that continue to sponsor terrorism. The choice is up to us…and our representatives.