A LOST GREEN OPPORTUNITY
 A LOST GREEN OPPORTUNITY Jay R. Mandle The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently issued its most dire warning to date concerning greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. It reported that “in 2010, average annual global greenhouse gas emissions were at their highest levels in human history,” and that “…without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is beyond reach.” Achieving that goal, it concluded, “will involve a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use.” But that requires “clear signaling from governments and the international community, including a stronger alignment of public sector finance and policy.” Such a “stronger alignment” to reduce fossil fuel use has not occurred in the United States. U.S. Energy Information Administration data indicate that as a percentage of total energy sources, fossil fuel use actually slightly increased between 2010 and 2021, from 77.6 percent to 79.1 percent. Renewable energy sources correspondingly decreased from 22.4 percent to 20.9 percent, a decline due entirely to a fall in the importance of nuclear power. In short, despite warnings concerning the dangers associated with the use of fossil fuels, very little has changed in the United States. It still overwhelmingly depends on energy that produces greenhouse gases. The grip that fossil fuels maintain has been revealed inadvertently by the government’s recent effort to curb inflation. The Biden administration, more than any previous one, has acknowledged the importance of the climate crisis. Yet when faced with rising energy prices – due in large part to the ban imposed on Russian oil imports since its invasion of Ukraine – the Administration has chosen to increase the supply of petroleum from United States sources. Lying behind that choice is the dominance of big money in politics, a dominance that makes it difficult for politicians to adhere to the IPCC’s call for action. For the next six months, the Biden Administration will release a million barrels of petroleum per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It also has reversed its ban on selling leases for petroleum drilling on 144,000 acres of government land. To be fair, the Administration has in principle recognized that the energy shortfall caused by the war in Ukraine could be overcome alternatively, by increasing the use of renewables. The “Fact Sheet” issued by the White House included the statement that “the President will call on Congress to pass his plan to speed transition to clean energy that is made in America.” The problem however is that what is required is a crash program to increase renewables. But the Administration has not endorsed such a program, nor would it have any chance of adoption by Congress. Data on campaign contributions and lobbying, compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, makes it clear that such a radical commitment to curbing the use of fossil fuels is not on the political agenda. Renewables are not in the same league as fossil fuels when it comes to the amount of money spent on lobbying and campaign contributions to influence elected officials. In 2020, a relative handful of oil and gas donors contributed almost $100 million to office seekers. In contrast, contributors from alternative energy industries gave slightly more than $5 million. While the dominance of oil and gas is less dramatic in the case of lobbying, it nevertheless amounts to four times that of alternative energy outlays. (112.5 million compared to 32.5). Responding to inflation in the way chosen by the Biden Administration will obviously worsen the environmental crisis. But in the corridors of power where money talks, concern for the environment speaks with a muted voice. As a result, under pressure to do something about inflation, both Congress and the White House have failed to put the country on a green energy path by seizing the opportunity created by the boycott of Russian petroleum. The perverse role money plays in politics is made vivid when, as in this case, the country confronts a binary choice and the damaging option is chosen. But despite this, the fact remains that if the process of global warming is to be slowed, governments will have to act to protect the environment. Too much is at stake to accept the inevitability of inaction. What is clear however, at least in the case of the United States, is that the government will act only if much more political pressure than exists at present is applied to overcome the status quo dictated by wealth. American voters will have to create a pro-environment consensus so strong that political office-seekers will resist acting on the policy preferences of wealthy vested interests. This can be done! But there can be no question that saving the earth ultimately will require that the power of the many overcomes the political influence of the few. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jay Mandle is the Emerita W. Bradford Wiley Professor of Economics, Emeritus,at Colgate University. His many books include Change Elections to Change America: Democracy Matters Students In Action, and Creating Political Equality: Elections As a Public Good,. Mandle’s regular monthly editorials, Money On My Mind, appear on the Democracy Matters website, and explore the role of private money in politics and other critical social issues. The views expressed in Money On My Mind are those of the author, (not necessarily those of Democracy Matters, and are meant to stimulate discussion. |