As
we have turned the corner of a millennium, we have an extraordinary
opportunity to begin a new era in which our conception of how energy is
produced, used and conserved is transformed.
The energy strategy put forward by the current administration and
the Republican majority in the House of Representatives was developed
during the first half of 2001 by a Task Force chaired by Vice President
Cheney. Neither innovative private sector companies nor the public
interest were permitted to compete fairly and openly for the White
House ear.
Old thinking passed through the doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
far more often and easily than new thinking. Exxon Mobil, Enron or
Chevron enjoyed an access bonanza at the expense of consumers and
environmental technology manufacturers.
As a result, those most heavily invested in the current energy
system have set a course for the future that champions status quo
policies at the expense of new ideas and innovation. Common sense tells
us that the policies that made us dependent on foreign oil - however
repackaged in the mantle of patriotism - will only keep us dependent on
foreign oil. If we enact the entire Bush energy plan, we will find
ourselves 20 years from now more dependent on foreign oil than we are
today. The Administration has not offered an agenda for energy
independence.
Nothing is more indicative of old-thinking, special-interest
policy than the attempt to falsely sell to the American people a
rationale for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
When California was desperate for electricity, they proposed
drilling in ANWR - even though only 1 percent of California’s
electricity was oil-based and not an additional drop would appear for
10 years. I was publicly warned by Trent Lott that the lights were
literally about to go out in Massachusetts, all my constituents were
going to freeze to death in the dark, and I would bear responsibility.
Under the Administration’s proposals, increasing demand for oil
will quickly gobble up whatever comes from small US supplies. While the
US has only 3 percent of the world’s petroleum reserves, we use 25
percent of the world’s oil supply. The solution does not lie in ANWR -
it lies in less dependency on oil itself.
America has a choice between two competing visions. The
Administration sees a world where our principal effort is to drill our
way out of our problem. I see a world where our primary focus shifts to
exciting a new marketplace for alternative and renewable energy
sources.
The Administration begrudgingly accepts that global warming is a
threat that must be addressed - even as their energy plan would
increase global warming pollution by more than 30 percent. They say
they want to stem air pollution that makes Americans sick and degrades
our land and water - but their proposals weaken pollution controls at
powerplants.
We have to do better than this.
I’ve talked to citizens across our country, to business people,
farmers and the energy industry; to academic experts and local
officials; to the public health community and public interest
organizations, and I have found that more and more Americans “get it.”
They are dissatisfied with the fossil-fuel based energy policies
that made sense 50 years ago. They are frustrated because we don’t
pursue alternatives they know we could adopt.
They want leaders setting an agenda where protecting our land, our
water, our air and our public health are national priorities, not
afterthoughts. They want a country where energy security is a growing
reality.
I respectfully suggest that it is time to pursue a national
Strategic Energy Initiative. Its goal is quite simply to initiate a
transition from our heavy dependence on polluting and insecure fossil
fuels to more efficient, clean and reliable energy.
America has made exactly this sort of energy transition more than
once before. For much of the 1800s our primary source of energy was
wood. By the late 1800s, coal was king. That changed when the
automobile went into mass production and demand for gasoline soared.
Natural gas was added to the energy mix in the ‘40s. Nuclear power came
online in the ‘50s. Now we need to prepare our nation for the 21st
Century and begin a transition to domestic, clean and reliable energy
technologies.
During the last century, the coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries
benefited from hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, tax
breaks, land sales and outright government assistance. A $1.8 billion
federal largesse is lavished on oil and gas while alternative efforts
compete for the scraps of a mere $24 million in federal venture
capital. A technological revolution can change the energy landscape
itself, and it’s time we accelerate the technology.
I believe we should set a national goal of having 20 percent of
our electricity come from domestic alternative and renewable sources by
the year 2020. Twenty-twenty - I think it’s a vision worthy of America;
a goal I believe our citizens are ready to embrace.
Minnesota requires that a percentage of its electricity be
generated from the wind. Texas is on track to reach its renewable
target by 2004 instead of the proposed year of 2009. California is at
13 percent renewable energy and there is no reason other states can’t
do better.
The growth of wind, solar and geothermal would spark a surge in
production resulting in a net gain to our national economy, a net gain
in employment, and a net gain in wages. There are simply more
jobs-per-megawatt in the renewable industries than in fossil-fuel
sectors.
Domestic, renewable sources are entirely under our control. No
foreign government can embargo them. No terrorist can seize control of
them. No cartel can play games with them. No American soldier will have
to risk his or her life to protect them.
During the 1970s, America created the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) program to promote the manufacture of more efficient,
safe, reliable and high-quality cars. It saved oil. (I might add that
the law was signed by a Republican President from Michigan, named Ford.)
We should promote the use of renewable biofuels in addition to the
corn-based ethanol we already support. A national goal that a
percentage of our gas be derived from biomass is in our Democratic
energy proposal.
Our national energy bill is $200 billion lower thanks to the
efficiency gains of the past three decades. Efficiency has been the
second largest source of energy over the past two decades, second only
to oil.
Rather than have our energy policy be the last big mistake of the
20th century, we can make it the first major opportunity for security
of the 21st century.
John Kerry is a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. This article
is excerpted from a major speech delivered on January 22, 2002 to the
Center for National Policy in Washington, DC.
We don’t have a paywall because, as a nonprofit publication, our mission is to inform, educate and inspire action to protect our living world. Which is why we rely on readers like you for support. If you believe in the work we do, please consider making a tax-deductible year-end donation to our Green Journalism Fund.
DonateGet four issues of the magazine at the discounted rate of $20.