Mr. Obama’s Energy Vision
It was instructive and depressing this week to watch President Obama and Congressional Republicans marching in completely different directions on energy policy. Mr. Obama reminded us that charting a clean energy future is not a pipe dream and that America can reduce its dependence on foreign oil. The Republicans reminded us how hard it will be to get there.
The outcome depends in no small measure on how hard Mr. Obama is willing to battle for his policies. As he showed again in a speech on Wednesday, he has no trouble articulating energy-related issues. What remains in doubt has been his willingness to see the fight through. This time must be different.
Beset by rising gas prices and Middle Eastern turmoil, Mr. Obama, like other presidents, decried the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. He also said there were no quick fixes and that a nation with only 2 percent of the world’s reserves cannot drill its way to self-sufficiency.
He then offered a strategy aimed at, among other things, reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025, partly by increasing domestic production but largely by producing more efficient vehicles and by moving advanced biofuels from the laboratory to commercial production.
These are achievable goals. Reducing oil imports by one-third means using 3.7 million fewer barrels a day. The fuel economy standards set last year by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation will yield 1.7 million of those barrels; the next round of standards, now on the drawing boards at the E.P.A., will yield another 1.7 million barrels. Advanced biofuels and improved mass transit could get us the rest of the way.
None of these goals will be reached if the Republicans who dominate their party have their way. One particularly destructive amendment to the House’s irresponsible budget bill would strip the E.P.A. of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles and stationary sources. This authority, conferred by the Supreme Court, made possible the current fuel economy rules — which would be cast into doubt if the bill became law. It is obviously essential to any new round of rule-making. The bill also gave short shrift to most other clean energy programs.
Then there are three bills offered by Doc Hastings, the Washington Republican who leads the House Natural Resources Committee. The bills would effectively rewrite the rules governing offshore drilling imposed after the gulf oil spill, opening vast areas of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic to exploration and greatly accelerating the measured pace at which the administration has been issuing drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.
The chances for responsible progress seem greater in the Senate, despite mischievous efforts to undermine the E.P.A. by Republicans and some coal-country Democrats. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, is demanding a vote on a bill that would mimic the House budget measure by stripping the agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. John D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat, has reintroduced a bill that would delay any such regulation for two years, which is almost as bad because such delays have a way of becoming permanent.
A more positive note was sounded Thursday by a bipartisan group of senators assembled by Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat, and Saxby Chambliss, a Republican of Georgia. The group is the remnants of the so-called Gang of 10 that tried to work out a sensible energy strategy during the “drill, baby, drill” hysteria of the 2008 presidential campaign. The group failed then, but Mr. Obama’s speech appears to have inspired a reunion — a tender shoot Mr. Obama should move quickly to encourage.
