One Reason for Energy Policy Failure
This is quite an interesting scoop (underplayed with a bland headline) that John Broder posted last night at the NYT Green blog. Here are the money quotes:
“I failed in one aspect of my job,” said General Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant. “I should have advocated much more persuasively for the creation of a senior director in the N.S.C. and a fully staffed directorate to deal with energy as a national security issue, which it is.”
He said that Carol Browner, who recently left as White House coordinator for energy and climate change policy, did not have the authority or staff she needed to compel action by the executive branch. And the president’s attention to the issue was episodic because of constant crises and other priorities, he added.
“As a result,” General Jones said, “it didn’t get the daily attention the president wanted. It was a structural problem that can and should be fixed. I made that recommendation to him when I left.”
How exactly is energy a national security issue?
That is far too narrow a stovepipe.
I think it can summed up by parsing the nut graph:
“They want to shift the focus of the debate from the environmental benefits of reducing fossil fuel use [I’ll bet they want that “shift,” shale gas just changed that whole outlook] to the national security aspects of the nation’s dependence on oil, much of it from the Middle East and other unstable regions [right- acknowledge that windmills never would have played any role in reducing foreign oil dependence, allow the domestic drilling that the president opposed when he was a senator, take credit for the fact that shale gas changed the game while the administration was playing around with Jimmy Carter’s used solar panels from the 1970s]. They also contend that the nation is falling behind in nuclear technology [and has been since the anti-science Democratic Party made killing the technology a feature of its energy platform and we all have to pay the price of making up that lost ground. This is an important clue as to why nobody is excited about having the party write a “comprehensive” energy policy.] and the development of alternative energy systems [thank goodness we didn’t go this route- have you seen the stats for wind and solar in Europe and the UK? They are one of the world’s most expensive – and obvious- failures].They note that climate change is already posing security challenges because of the political implications of migrations caused by food shortages and drought.[neither of which have happened to any statistically significant degree, except in the case of price hikes brought on by comprehensive green energy policies requiring the burning of food in cars. More important to the global security situation, of course, is the political status of the IPCC’s efforts to regulate economic growth in China, India and Brazil. Luckily, the IPCC successfully demonstrated to China that there would be no real effort to reduce GHG emissions.]”
charlie Says:
<i>How exactly is energy a national security issue?</i>
Long ago in the days of the Arab oil embargo the good US Citizens may have become cranky. Cranky tends to lead to violence.
Interpretation is everything.
Are his described intentions to be interpreted as a ploy to deflect the debate or as an attempt to sieze the debate for legitimate concerns.
I think that there has been over-reach by the climate paradigm in many areas, notable international development but also in domestic policy, both environmental and economic. Should strategic concerns fall under the domain of environmental policy?
“…thank goodness we didn’t go this route- have you seen the stats for wind and solar in Europe and the UK? They are one of the world’s most expensive – and obvious- failures…”
now now…..Spain has shown us how to get rich with solar panels and flood lights. Just have to have the “right” tariffs.