Minimizing a Key Threat: State of the Union Address 2012

President Barack Obama delivers the 2012 State of the Union Address (Image source: whitehouse.gov)

Two years ago, President Obama in his State of the Union Address said, “The nation that leads the clean energy economy will lead the global economy and America must be that nation.” So how are we doing?

From a next economy point of view, the critical parts of last night’s State of the Union Address were:

• Oil and gas development are the centerpiece of the administration’s energy plan
• Natural gas is the primary to the ‘clean energy’ part of the energy plan
• America is the leader in battery technologies
• The president attempted to encourage more development in wind, solar, and other renewables by encouraging clean-energy tax breaks and the removal of subsidies to profitable oil companies
• The president attempted to leverage American competitive spirit: “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.”
• “Differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, but there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least create a clean energy standard.”  So,
• Major new renewable standards by executive order were announced, three million homes’ worth via government land and private development and 250,000 homes’ worth per year to be purchased by the Navy
• Efficiency and conservation were mentioned as easy and as job creators, so the president proposed incentives to businesses to become more efficient, and asked Congress for legislation to that effect

Unfortunately, a lot of these fall more on the rhetorical side, although we do welcome the few specifics that were offered. Unquestionably, it is a partial contrast with the rhetoric coming from Republicans’ campaigns, which exclusively pander to big oil and Wall Street by pretending climate change and resource scarcity do not exist, so they can pursue their depletist, dangerous, destabilizing policies.  But, sadly, it’s not nearly enough.

Here’s what the president didn’t say.  He didn’t say that the climatic and resource challenges facing America are the most long-term economically destabilizing risks that exist. He didn’t say that three million homes’ worth of renewable energy is a good start but tiny next to the progress required to avoid financially disastrous resource scarcity and climate change, and he didn’t mention a time frame for that.  He didn’t acknowledge that the climate disinformation campaign causing all the disastrous pandering, policy stagnation and partisan gridlock is, in the words of NASA’s James Hansen, America’s foremost climate scientist, a “crime against humanity.”

Since the possibility exists that this could be President Obama’s last State of the Union Address, the president should want to make his most full, complete case for his legacy, for what he wants his administration to stand for.  It’s easy to see why he would fear taking on the most profitable companies in the history of humankind in a larger way than merely proposing taking away their tax welfare, but he should have wanted to make his strongest case on all fronts. We can only hope the economic realities of pursuing a clean efficient future will speak for themselves, because our policymakers, even the good ones, are way behind.