ThePoliticalReview

On March 31, President Obama announced a plan to open areas along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling. This plan has been met with dismay from environmental groups, praise from some moderate Senators, and criticism from conservatives. However, Obama’s plan to expand offshore drilling does not make sense from an environmental, economic, or political perspective.

In terms of environmental impact, the expansion of offshore drilling will provide the U.S. with new sources of fossil fuels, which, when burned, are a major cause of global climate change. If the amount of energy produced from oil and natural gas increases, there will be less of an incentive to develop clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. In addition, the plan would lead to an increased potential of accidents from offshore drilling, such as oil spills and leaks, which have adverse effects on marine environments. Obama’s plan would bar drilling in some environmentally sensitive areas, such as Bristol Bay in Alaska, but other areas would be susceptible to these environmental risks.

From an economic perspective, the predicted amount of oil discovered in these areas would have a very minimal effect on gas prices. The U.S. Energy Administration reported last year that fully opening the federal outer continental shelf to drilling as opposed to restricting drilling there would not affect U.S. gas prices by 2020, and would make them only three cents per gallon lower by 2030. In addition, it is estimated that oil companies have 34 billion barrels of undiscovered, undeveloped oil available n the lower 48 states. Therefore, opening new areas to drilling would have a very minimal economic effect.

Some have argued that Obama’s announcement was a political tactic to show Republicans that he is willing to compromise on the cap and trade bill, which the Senate will begin to debate in the next few weeks. If this was his intention, Obama’s strategy failed miserably. By appeasing to Republicans before negotiations on the bill have begun, Obama has taken an important bargaining chip off the table. He has moved the starting point of these negotiations to the right, and future compromises will therefore have to move even further to the right. If Obama had laid out demands for investments in renewable energy and green jobs, and then later used the expansion of offshore drilling as a bargaining chip to make sure these demands were met, this would be a much better strategy. There is nothing in recent history to suggest that Republicans will be willing to make concessions on other issues as a result of this plan. Just look at the recent health care debate, where Republican struck down every Democratic proposal despite the Democrats best efforts to compromise. Many conservatives are already claiming that Obama’s offshore drilling plan should increase the areas available for drilling even more.

Overall, Obama’s plan is not a sound environmental or economic approach to reducing our dependence of fossil fuels or our energy prices. It is also not a logical political strategy, given that further compromises will have to be made with moderates and conservatives as the Senate debates cap and trade. Instead of announcing this controversial policy now, Obama should have laid out ambitious goals for renewable energy development, and, if necessary, used offshore drilling expansion as a bargaining chip to achieve these goals in the future.

Amy Plovnick can be contacted at amyplovnick [at] wustl.edu

Josh Rosmarin can be contacted at josh.rosmarin [at] yale.edu

Confession: I hate to drive. It’s not that I’m a bad driver. I just find navigating crowded streets stressful and powering down long highways dull. Not to mention my aversion to spewing greenhouse gasses into the air every time I turn on the motor. If I do have to drive, I will let my passengers know how much I despise the activity by exclaiming, “I hate driving!” whenever another driver cuts me off, or I have to merge, or I get stuck at a long red light.

By extension, I love public transportation. When I think of buses and trains, I remember going to events and exploring the city with large groups of friends, sitting next to someone who I otherwise would never interact with, and having time to relax and do a crossword puzzle. In fact, I love public transportation so much that I (somewhat foolishly) spent eight hours one winter day riding the entirety of the subway system in Boston, from the start to the end of every line.

To me, using pubic transportation is a means to get where I want without harming the environment. But right here in St. Louis County, public transportation is a political issue as well as an environmental one. Specifically, on April 6 voters will decide Metro’s fate by voting on Proposition A. If passed, Prop A will increase the sales tax one half of one percent and raise $75 million in revenue for Metro services. The new revenue will restore MetroLink, MetroBus, and Call-a-Ride Services previously cut in 2009 and allow for future expansion of these services.

Given that it is appearing in an off-peak, April election, Prop A has become extremely political and contentious.

Prominent supporters of Prop A include St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley, Chancellor Wrighton, and a non-profit group called Citizens for Modern Transit. Opponents include John Burns, who was involved with the gulag that was built on campus last fall, and a competing organization called Citizens for Better Transit. The comment pages on Post-Dispatch and Student Life articles related to Prop A have been absolutely buzzing with pointed comments from both sides. This is bound to be a close election, and with only the small county population voting, every vote matters.

Public transportation is vital to a city like St. Louis. It provides economic benefits for individuals and communities, allowing individuals to cheaply commute to work and spurring development near train stations. It also provides numerous social and environmental benefits, such as reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions by promoting alternatives to driving. If Prop A does not pass, Metro will be forced to make major cuts that will adversely affect both riders and employees.

I will vote for Prop A because it will help the St. Louis community and the environment (and it will allow me to get around the city without participating in my most hated activity of driving). Everyone who rides Metro has his or her own reasons for supporting the system, and I urge you to find yours. Every successful, vibrant major city has an extensive public transportation system, and St. Louis should be no exception. So remember, on April 6 jump into the fray of a contentious local election and help save public transit in St. Louis!

Amy Plovnick can be contacted at amyplovnick [at] wustl.edu

While President Obama spent most of his recent State of the Union address (full speech here) focusing on jobs, the budget, and health care (and rightly so), he also spent a good amount of time discussing environmental concerns. He made some positive remarks about the need to pass an energy and climate bill, but also some disheartening ones about the kinds of energy we should invest in. Here is a breakdown of the bad, the good, and what was left out.

The bad: After drawing attention to the need to transition to a clean energy economy, Obama gave a shout out to special interest groups and energy companies, saying that this transition, “means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.” These three proposed solutions are far from ideal. Nuclear energy is impractical because of the time it takes to build new nuclear reactors, and harmful because of the radioactive waste that is produced has nowhere to go. Offshore drilling for oil will increase our energy independence, but will do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and will actually cause more environmental degradation in the areas that are drilled. Most types of biofuels produce large amounts of greenhouse gasses while being grown and converted into fuel, so their positive impact on the environment is minimal. Finally, “clean coal” is an industry term for carbon capture and sequestration, which is not currently a marketable technology and which does not reduce the harms of coal mining and disposal.

The good: Despite these less than ideal suggestions, Obama strongly urged the Senate to pass a climate bill: “Yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” This bill is absolutely essential to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, creating a clean energy economy, and advancing a global climate agreement, and Obama was right to endorse it.

The president also gave a slap in the face to climate change deniers, saying, “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” He then made the often ignored economic argument for a climate bill, saying, “even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.” Supporters of regulating greenhouse gasses often focus on the environmental benefits of such legislation, without making the economic and national security argument, and Obama was wise to draw in these other perspectives.

The missing: Obama spent very little time talking about renewable energy; wind, solar, and geothermal power that must be the centerpiece of our energy future if we truly want to combat climate change. He also did not mention the words “cap and trade”, instead calling the legislation the “energy and climate bill” and focusing on job creation and innovation instead of on regulation.

What it means: The president clearly wants to drum up bipartisan support for a climate bill. He appealed to both liberals who want large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and conservatives who are worried about the economy and the too much government regulation. And despite his endorsement of unclean energy sources, this bipartisan approach was the right one to take. Stopping climate change should be an issue that people of all ideologies can rally around, and Obama made it clear that it is in everyone’s best interests to do so.

In sum, the state of the environment is compromised. Compromised because of the harm that we are doing to it through over-consumption and the use of dirty energy, but also compromised because of the concessions that will need to be made on both sides in order to pass an effective climate bill.

Amy Plovnick can be contacted at amyplovnick [at] wustl.edu

As you probably know, the United Nations is in the midst of its Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Countries are trying to compromise on a new global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol and tackle the massive global problem of climate change. While a new binding treaty on emissions reduction will not be created at Copenhagen, world leaders want to hammer out the basic principles of an agreement so that a treaty can be created and ratified next year. In case you have been too busy studying for finals to pay attention to the conference, here are some of the more interesting happenings from last week and issues that still need to be resolved as heads of state come to the conference later in the week:

• Ever heard of Tuvalu? This tiny island nation has its highest point only four meters above sea level, and most of its population lives below two meters above sea level, so it would be devastated by the rise in sea level that is predicted to accompany global warming. Delegates from Tuvalu proposed an amendment to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. This would only allow for a .75 degrees Celsius increase higher than the increase to this point, and it would require cuts in carbon emissions that are significantly more ambitious than the proposals of the world’s major powers, including the U.S. This amendment received support from other island nations such as Grenada and the Solomon Islands, and was met with fierce opposition by Saudi Arabia, China, and India. Although Tuvalu’s proposal is unlikely to be adapted, it remains to be seen how the interests of small island nations and of large energy producing nations will be met in a final agreement.

• Over the weekend, an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 protesters from hundreds of countries marched through the city to the convention center where delegates were meeting. This demonstration brought together environmental groups, human rights activists, climate activists and anti-capitalists, and was largely peaceful. However, police did detain at least 950 people in a demonstration that turned violent in a different part of the city. Click here for a photo of this amazing display of support for a strong global climate treaty.

• The U.S. and China are at a disagreement about China’s refusal to accept international monitoring of its carbon emissions. China’s has pledged to reduce its “carbon intensity” (the growth of its emissions) by 40 percent by 2020, even though this would still lead to a net rise in its emissions. The U.S. is unhappy because it has no way of verifying that China is meeting these goals. As of Tuesday morning, the countries had reached a stalemate over this issue.

• With several days remaining in the conference and state leaders including President Obama scheduled to arrive later in the week, several major issues remain unresolved. How much aid will rich countries give to poorer countries to combat the effects of global warming? Will the United States commit to strong cuts in carbon emissions such as those proposed by the European Union, or will it decide to make only modest cuts because of fears that the Senate will not approve a strong treaty? How will developing countries such as China and India cut carbon emissions without sacrificing economic growth? Most importantly, will an agreement be reached at all, or will these issues be pushed back to the next round of climate talks next year? Stay tuned to the negotiations in Copenhagen this week for the answers.

Amy Plovnick can be contacted at amyplovnick [at] wustl.edu

I often feel there is a disconnect between the global environmental problems that I want to solve and the actions that I am capable of taking to influence them. I find myself asking, “Will this petition actually do anything to slow global warming? Will any lawmakers notice a rally that I participate in?” While these actions are extremely important, it is easy to feel helpless and disillusioned in the face of immense, global problems such as climate change.

Well fear not, my fellow disillusioned students. Environmental activism has come to Wash U’s campus, and it is not going away until we enact change that will affect issues on campus and around the globe. On November 2, Washington University hosted “America’s Energy Future” Symposium, a conference about our country’s future energy options. The seven panelists at the symposium included Stephen Lear, the president and CEO of Arch Coal, Fred Palmer, the senior vice president of government relations at Peabody Energy, Dan Cole, the senior vice president of Ameren energy, and Martha Schlicher, the senior vice president of biofuels at Monsanto. These panelists presented a view of an energy future that focuses on nuclear energy, biofuels, and so-called “Clean Coal”, with limited discussion of truly renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Much of what was presented at the symposium sounded like propaganda for the individual companies instead of an informed discussion about the environmental, technological, economic, and political issues confronting the energy industry.

The selection of speakers at the symposium was particularly disturbing, given that the Wash U board of trustees includes executives from Peabody Energy, Ameren, and Arch Coal, and that these companies fund the University’s Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization (CCCU) that was created last December. This calls into question the integrity of the symposium and suggests that the speakers were chosen because of their intimate relationship with Wash U, instead of any expertise or impartial opinions they could have to offer.

Students were not about to sit back as these companies presented an energy future that lacked renewable energy sources. At the reception following the symposium, almost one hundred students from groups such as Students from Endowment Transparency, Green Action, the Burning Kumquat, and the Wash U Peace Coalition, participated in a flash mob to protest the energy future presented at the symposium. (You can watch the video of the flash mob here: http://www.studlife.com/news/2009/11/04/fighting-the-coal-executives-feature-photo/ ). They then held an alternate symposium, which featured presentations of student research in renewable energy and discussion of how to incorporate these sources in the near future.

And they did not stop there. In response to the collaboration of groups participating in the flash mob, students formed the Washington University Climate Justice Alliance (WUCJA), a coalition of over ten student groups concerned about climate change as a social justice issue. (You can access WUCJA’s blog here: http://wucja.wordpress.com/ ). WUCJA’s first project is to urge the administration to change the name of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization to reflect the true nature of the research being done. “Clean Coal” is an industry marketing term intended to conceal the negative environmental effects of coal extraction, combustion, and disposal. The research being done in the consortium is important in determining how we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions given the current infrastructure and energy consumption in this country. However, the usage of the term “clean coal” calls into question the integrity of our University and its relationship with the coal companies that fund the Consortium.

Not long ago, the Student Union Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging the administration to change the name of the CCCU to reflect the fact that “clean coal” is a marketing term and does not accurately represent the research that is taking place under the Consortium. While debating the resolution, many of the senators applauded the large number of constituent emails they received urging them to support the resolution, as well as the high student turnout at the senate meeting. This outpouring of student support may be a major reason for this resolution’s success.

In the resolution, the senate, “strongly urges the Washington University administration to change the name of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization” and “urges that the Consortium’s research into future uses of coal include studies of the social and environmental effects of its extraction, combustion, and disposal”. From this resolution, and the growing student movement that accompanies it, the chancellor and other leaders of the CCCU will see that students are concerned about the use of the “clean coal” misnomer, and may change the name and decrease the influence that coal and energy companies have over our school.

This is not a time to feel disillusioned about how to solve the massive environmental problems that we face. Rather, it is an opportunity to feel empowered, to know that we, as students, have an opportunity to enact real change at our university and contribute to solving these problems. Now is the time to do the research, to get questions answered, and to fight for a school whose research is motivated by knowledge and not by the interests of corporations.





Amy Plovnick can be contacted at amyplovnick [at] wustl.edu