In honor of the New Kids on the Block being back 2gether (OMG!!!!11! …but seriously, who saw that coming?), I’m giving some love to the National Review. Yeah, okay, that was a really crappy connection. But I love me some pop culture references. VH1: call me! Anywho… Victor Davis Hanson did a really thoughtful analysis about, what else, energy policy. His argument? The energy revolution (as some have taken to calling it) is bad for traditionally disadvantaged people, namely the poor.
There is a dangerous potential for there to be some truth to this, but it is not a foregone conclusion. I wrote the other day that not all cap-and-trade policies are created equal, and the effects that different versions will have on the poor is the great distinguishing factor.
Environmental types don’t necessarily like to talk about this. They’ll change the subject to rich people driving Hummers, while ignoring the fact that it’s rich people driving Priuses as well. The fact of the matter is, the details will matter a great deal in terms of the feasibility and fairness of a cap-and-trade program.
Many low-income people are already hurting thanks to rising gas and energy costs. Hanson advocates tapping into U.S. oil reserves in order to alleviate these stresses. Unless clean energy advocates can come up with a climate-friendly solution to these economic challenges (and an economy-friendly energy policy), the movement is going to be both powerless and disliked – and with good reason.
Rising energy prices are not merely one consequence of some types of cap-and-trade policies; for many, it is the only consequence that matters. What good is a safe environment in thirty years (when Jimmy Eat World is doing their reunion tour) when you have to choose between gas to get to work and feeding your family today? Environmentalists and others: the solution to global warming cannot be in the form of tough love.
Hanson’s conclusion, however, is that we – the world, liberals, whatever – have to pick between saving the environment and reducing energy prices (aka, helping poor people). Unless we want to pay nine dollars for a gallon of gas (like the Dirty Liberals want you to!), we should drill off the coast of Florida, global warming be damned.
Ouch.
This will remain a seductive argument until the clean energy movement can step up with a united voice and give an actionable plan for fighting global warming and poverty at the same time. ‘Green jobs’ doesn’t really mean anything concrete (unless we’re talking about the aprons at the Starbucks); higher gas prices are very real and easy to understand.
An assumption that I’m about to make here is that the proceeds from an auction will be returned to The People. Many from all across the political spectrum would rather go on a pork shopping spree with this money. No! Bad lobbyist!
Energy prices will rise under a cap-and-trade system. If the carbon permits are given away, then utility companies will pocket the difference, all the while complaining about the restrictions placed on them. If the permits are auctioned off, then the proceeds can be returned to people on a per capita basis. People with fewer appliances and smaller homes will see their energy bill increase a smaller amount than those with plasma TVs and other nifty toys, yet they will get the same rebate from the carbon permits per household member. This will translate into money back for the poorest Americans even after paying for their higher energy bills.
If we drill off the coast of Florida, oil executives will pocket huge profits. And let’s be clear, I’m not against people making money. But we’re talking here about helping the disadvantaged… and Hanson started it. Even if gas prices went down by as much as 20 cents a gallon, oil and energy bills are still going to be a huge fraction of low-income budgets. If we can give everyone a rebate – funded by carbon auctions – to help pay for rising energy costs, then lower income people will have more capital on-hand to weatherize their homes, make a down payment on a fuel efficient car, or whatever. Good [New] Deal.
June 12, 2008 at 4:26 pm
This isn’t the first time people have thought about the balance between progressive environmentalism and social justice. At least in Minnesota it hasn’t. Organizations like EJAM (Environmental Advocates of Minnesota) work hard to create a balance between the two. Also, community organizations like The Phillips Energy Co-op work hard to inform disadvantaged citizens about how energy efficiency can also mean economic savings. I think people are starting to understand the connection between environmentalism and economics. Eco-jobs, though you may feel a bit cynical, will transform the way people work; even today, green career coaches, specialists, and training exist. So, instead of being so pessimistic, let’s get “The Right Stuff” going!
June 12, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Excellent point Veronica. I didn’t mean to say that no one is talking about the social justice side of energy policy. But it’s something I hope we’ll all hear more about as energy policy is debated in the mainstream media over the coming months and years. And unfortunately, the thing that has caught the attention of politicians and pundits is not the urgency of global warming, but the burden of high gas prices. To counter this, I think that clean energy advocates have to be extra proactive about acknowledging the potential challenges of this balance and offering actionable solutions.
I also agree that green jobs are going to be hugely important. But unless we can specify exactly what eco-job is going to be opening up down the street from an unemployed autoworker, it can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around, especially when they are faced with more pressing problems.
I’m not trying to be pessimistic, and I hope I don’t sound too down on our clean energy prospects. On the contrary, I think that there are great things in store for the green movement in the very near future. However, in order to get there, we need to ask and have answers for the tough questions. This will make these solutions more politically as well as practically feasible.
June 16, 2008 at 1:25 pm
My inner cynic sez: it’ll be interesting to see how both (every?) side plays the “disadvantaged communities” card. The VD Hansons say we need more oil to save poor people from the carbon-policy-wielding environmentalists. The progressives say we need more policy to save poor people from high energy bills in a carbon-constrained economy. My side, of course, is right….