I feel obligated to address what has been the subject of much discussion as of late: President Obama's so-called "all of the above" energy policy. It is being lauded as a sign of the president's commitment to energy independence, his willingness to cooperate. It is hailed as egalitarian, even patriotic.
Recently, however, Republicans in Congress have begun to complain that they have been calling for an "all of the above" approach for years, even using the same phrasing—that is, while denying climate change and the devastation it will bring.
The best-case scenario is that Obama's "all of the above" strategy means we value coal, natural gas, or petroleum, the same way we value renewables like solar or wind. But how can the president who came in promising environmental reform and significant growth in green jobs now advocate for a policy effectively demanding, in the words of Bill McKibben, that we "open up every coal seam we can find?"
Sure, the policy also means using wind and nuclear power, but if it is implemented, fossil fuels will still define our energy consumption for years to come.
Just after the Northeast suffered a near-snowless winter, it's all the more surprising that our president and his staff appear to have decided to neglect climate science.
This "all of the above" policy is not egalitarian. With growing access to fossil fuels at home, it is becoming much more difficult to stir up investment in renewables. That's how a free market works; the cheaper commodity is always in greater demand. And whenever Obama tries to level the energy playing field by favoring renewables, he is accused of hurting the economy.
In Ohio, for example, 17,000 square miles of potential natural reserves have created a fossil fuel boom. This has led to a decrease of wind projects in Ohio, as natural gas prices are too low for renewables to compete with. Many solar startups that seemed healthy only a few years ago are being forced to file for bankruptcy; they just can't compete with such low electricity prices.
Nuclear power has suffered as well, in part because of our renewed fears regarding radioactive waste and nuclear meltdowns, which has left American reactors lagging behind internationally. The societal aversion to nuclear power is misguided: as much more damage is caused by pollution from fossil fuels than from nuclear waste disposal. Newly christened gas drilling sites in central Wyoming and northeastern Utah already are under attack for air quality problems they have created. Coal alone is estimated to cost at least $300 billion a year in health problems and deaths, according to the late Dr. Paul Epstein of Harvard's Center for Health and the Global Environment.
Potential damage aside, some might be surprised to learn that according to The New York Times, the United States is a net exporter of refined gas. American natural gas companies have recently suffered from overproduction, turning to China and others to take the excess off their hands. Our vision of energy independence does not fit into this reality.
But maybe it isn't so hard to understand where the administration is coming from. President Obama is facing reelection. Powerful oil magnates David and Charles Koch have pledged to spend $200 million dollars on the election, and no one knows the power of money better than Obama, especially after his last presidential campaign.
Our president has used stall tactics and appeasement like this before when it comes to the environment. His approval of the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline seemed entirely contradictory to his earlier delay on the Canadian portion. A delay, by the way, that left the decision to be made after the election. Let's just hope that his purported support of a damaging energy policy is just a stall tactic.
Peter Nauffts is a member of the Class of 2015.