Who got us in this energy mess? Start with Ronald Reagan

[RedEarth]

Ronald Wilson Reagan is the “culprit in chief” when it comes to the “current energy debacle” explains Richard Cohen in “Wish Upon a Pump.” I could not agree more.

Reagan is a key reason we have only about one-sixth of the soaring global market for windpower — an industry we once dominated: “President Reagan cut the renewable energy R&D budget 85% after he took office and eliminated the wind investment tax credit in 1986. This was pretty much the death of most of the US wind industry” (see “Anti-wind McCain delivers climate remarks at foreign wind company“).

Reagan gutted Carter’s entire multi-billion dollar clean energy and energy efficiency effort. He opposed and then rolled back fuel economy standards. Reagan turned all such commonsense strategies into “liberal” policies that must be opposed by any true conservative, a position embraced all too consistently by conservative leaders from Gingrich to Bush/Cheney and now to John McCain.

The only real difference between Reagan and Bush/McCain is that the latter have embraced the Frank Luntz strategy for conservatives, in which they claim rhetorically that they support clean energy technologies while actually promoting anti-technology policies (see “Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah.” That is why anti-wind McCain goes to a wind company to talk about climate.

The media was oblivious to what the Teflon president did in the 1980s, and they continue to lap up phony rhetoric of the anti-clean-energy conservatives today (see “Slate and the Post are suckered by anti-environmentalist Newt Gingrich” and “NYT’s Andy Revkin and E. O. Wilson get suckered by Newt Gingrich’s phony techno-optimism“). Well, not all of the media. Cohen gets it right in his terrific op-ed, most of which I reprint below:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/08/who-got-us-in-this-energy-mess-start-with-ronald-reagan/

[still_one]

1. No, start with Congress by ignoring the energy independence, nixon tried to push

during the Arab oil embargo in the seventies

[kristopher]

2. Nixon, Ford and Carter

They all followed the same general strategy based on setting a goal of energy security. Sneering at the need for prudence was puuuuuuuuuuuuuuure Ronnie.

[still_one]

3. unfortunately true /nt

[ramapo]

4. Mostly true but now what?

I've been saying the same for ten or 20 years and everybody thought I was crazy.

The question is who is the problem today. The answer is almost everyone. 99% of Americans pay lip service or are mostly oblivious to the depth of our energy and environmental problems. I don't exclude myself. I drive too much, use too much crap, etc. My family is worse. I'd be fine living without A/C (well most days to be honest), just like it was 1960. Not my wife. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of similar comforts, mostly not required, that we enjoy at the expense of our planet.

Politicians pander to our wish that there is a magic fix to all the problems that fifty to seventy-five years of hardcore resource burning have brought us. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What makes things worse is that those around the world who don't live like us, want to, which is clearly impossible.

The great god of economics might make an impact. Eventually the god of nature will have had enough of our crap.

I was at one time pessimistically optimistic. I've now come to the conclusion that there's no stopping the runaway train until it runs off the tracks. No amount of do-goodism, entrepreneurial spirit, legislation, invention or prayer is going to make a significant difference. Too much damage over too long a period. It is not going to be pretty. And that is my happy thought of the day....