A Presiden'st State of the Union is traditionally a sneak peak of spending priorities that are ultimately unveiled in the Administration’s budget proposal. While avoiding all mention of climate change or global warming, President Obama’s January address was heavy with rhetoric about the importance of investing in clean energy. Translation: less money for EPA, more for the Department of Energy.
Note how the White House is reframing the issue. The mission is no longer articulated as saving the planet; it’s about saving America’s reputation for ingenuity in the global market place and saving American jobs. Make no mistake. The motivation is the same – reducing carbon emissions. It’s the message and the messengers that have changed. Out with the White House Climate Czar. In with a White House Council on Jobs and Competiveness.
The centerpiece of Obama’s “clean energy” platform is a proposed goal of having 80 percent of the nation’s electricity generated from sources other than traditional fossil fuels by 2035. The goal is backed by $6.3 billion in Department of Energy funds for clean (aka “renewable”) energy research, development, demonstration and deployment. Another $588 million is earmarked for electric car research, development and deployment. Add in a number of loan guarantees and tax incentives and toss out subsidies for the oil and gas industry and you’ve got the framework for a national energy policy with clear winners and losers.
Enter Congress, where the Republican House has little interest in new spending at any agency, much less the oft-maligned Department of Energy, which has little to any voter interest or support. But this debate over dollars will shape up a bit differently as the U.S. business and investment community is lobbying Washington to breathe some life into the alternative energy marketplace. CEOs from more than 100 companies in the wind energy business wasted no time getting up to the Hill the very week the Administration delivered its budget to make a pitch for a national energy policy that promotes renewable energy sources.
While environmental politics are typically partisan, energy politics are more geographically motivated. That means that the White House and Energy Secretary Steven Chu have a chance to score some victories if they can get the non-coal and oil/gas producing states to play together nicely. Their luck starts with the fact that the new Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Rodney Freylinghusen (R-NJ), is an advocate for government investment in renewable energy.
On the Senate side, eyes are on Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico whom Obama has charged with making his renewable energy goal a reality, despite the fact he personally hasn’t been a big fan of the idea previously.
The oil, gas and coal states will put a lot of their muscle into fighting EPA regulation, but aren’t as likely to come out swinging too hard to fight the renewable investments except in the larger context of opposition to government spending.
In the end, the environmentalists just might get what they wished for – a shift towards more sustainable energy sources to fuel our economic growth. But the credit will go to the capitalists who have identified opportunities for business development and wealth creation from new sources. “More and more of the investment is coming from big companies,” according to Joel Makower of GreenBiz. Data compiled by Ernst & Young indicates that U.S. venture capital investment in cleantech companies increased by 8 percent to $3.98 billion in 2010. Now, can the private sector convince government to put a little skin in the game?
thank you. i love to read this type of information posts. again thank you...
Posted by: kiralık devremülkler | March 22, 2011 at 05:55 PM