Panel on Energy, SEJ Afternoon Plenary, 2010

Kieran Suckling, Executive Director of the Center for Biological Diversity, sits third in a row of four guests during the final lunch Plenary at the SEJ conference on Sunday, October 16, and his dire view of the energy situation in the US causes my table mates to give one another surprised looks. “Obama has failed,” he says, in a laconic but vehement voice. He’s judged as crabby, but probably right. In a few short minutes, during his first opportunity to talk, he lambastes the Obama administration for its lack of initiative and failure to act during what has been an historic time in American presidential history.

“The Obama administration was given an unprecedented opportunity, and it has not stepped up.” He leans back in his chair and continues. “Are we going to remove the massive subsidization of fossil fuels? Are we going to say, ‘Today we begin the ramp down of offshore oil drilling.’ There is no possibility of being able to clean up a spill of any magnitude in the Arctic, and yet the Obama administration continues to go forward with this.” His listing of the failures of the current government is refreshing, jolting and drops a sobering pall over the tables of journalists.

Energy issues are a huge topic today and for good reason. As Randy Udall, Independent Energy Consultant and former Director for the Community Office for Resource Efficiency and Co-Founder, Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas-USA says, “We have been born into the oil tribe. We consume our body weight in petroleum every seven days. Half the fossil fuel on the planet has been burned in the last twenty years. This is why we have a climate change problem. It’s a problem of abundance.” What we are most missing, he argues, is an appreciation, even a love, an acknowledgement of what these fossil fuel resources have meant to us, and how important they’ve been. At the same time that we understand this, we need to accelerate a move away from them.

It’s a holistic view, but one that may not be forceful enough, given the current situation with oil reserves, greenhouse gas emissions and a rapidly warming planet. But don’t say the words global warming to Karen Harbert.

Harbert is the Director of the Institute of 21st Century Energy, US Chamber of Commerce. “We say we want alternative energy,” she says, “but it can take 18 years to get a permit for renewable energy projects in this country. Is this really furthering our desire for a low carbon future, or standing in the way of it?”

Harbert ends up in hot water during the question period of the Plenary. A journalist asks her why her Institute supports Republican candidates who have questioned, or even disputed, the idea of climate change. “The problem with this debate is that you are supposed to be for or against. I want to look at the solutions, not the problems.” The problem with this is that it discounts the science.

If we look only forward we are no better, as the journalist also points out, than the Institute for 21st Century Energy’s Index of US Energy Security Risk, which fails to mention the link between carbon dioxide and global warming. Harbert’s answer? “We are not going to go down the science route.”

Kieran and Udall are the only two panel members who speak with clarity on the issue of energy during this panel. Nancy Sutley, of the Obama Administration, also demurs and hesitates. It will take time to find energy alternatives to replace fossil fuels, she says. She will not commit to yes or no on the issue and shifts the blame when pointedly questioned. “The lack of broad action on energy,” she says, “is due to congressional inaction, not executive indecision.”

Suckling's reason again comes to the fore. “Why does industry get to determine where to do alternative energy on public lands? If you want to avoid environmental litigation, you have to have the government lead, and the government is not leading.” That’s why, he says, we have these battles between environmentalists and industry over placement of wind turbines, over solar panels, over natural gas exploration.

What there seems to be is a basic disagreement in how to move forward. Harbert is interested in the future, but it’s unclear how she plans to get there when her center supports Republican candidates who question the scientific validity of global warming. To some on the panel, namely Herbert, there seems to be a questioning of the science. For others, such as Udall and Suckling, the science is unquestionable, but again, they differ in how best to use this science in order to fix the problem of energy issues. Suckling's critique asks if it is really too late. Where Udall sees opportunity, he sees pure failure.

Udall also posits that if we simply redirected some of our spending on military, we could shut down every coal plant in the country. Why not do this? Because of the massive machinery of fear which has gathered such momentum in this country. Diverting money away from attempts to catch 50 Al Khaida in Afghanistan would be to admit that the threat is not so great as we think. It would be to admit that there are more pressing problems. Setting aside military spending as a separate topic, everyone on the panel would agree that energy is a very pressing issue. But when it comes to finding solutions, and finding fool proof ways of putting those solutions into practice, trouble arises, and it isn’t going away any time soon.