Anthony Painter

While international relations observers may view December’s Copenhagen Climate Change Conference as the missed opportunity in moving to a post-carbon economy, last week’s Senate decision not to proceed with environmental legislation may ultimately prove to be more critical. And strangely, it may be an environmental initiative from the Nixon era that could get US environmental policy back on track.

President Obama’s first year and half have been marked by huge legislative successes: healthcare, recovery and investment, and last week’s financial services reform package.

The importance of healthcare reform to not only the well-being of tens of millions of Americans but also to the US economy can not be underestimated. The US recovery has been rather less productive in creating jobs than the UK’s. The non-wage costs of healthcare should be underestimated and the benefit to deficit reduction over time will also be critical. Meanwhile, last week’s financial services reform package not only provides greater consumer protection but shelters to a degree the land economy- financed by Main Street banks- from the sea economy- where Hedge Funds and the like prowl. Recovery and reinvestment prevented the US economy from sliding off a cliff edge though there is still a worryingly jobless nature to the recovery as unemployment rates remain stubbornly high.

All in all though, the legislative achievements during Obama’s term of office have been impressive. His election victory was the most commanding since Lyndon B Johnson’s in 1964. His legislative achievements have been similarly prolific. A sound economy and the well-being of Americans have been a thread that has run through the most eye-catching measures.

And so it is all the more perplexing that the Administration has allowed environmental reform to slip down the agenda as it is a natural fit with its overall strategy for reform of the US state, economy and society. Strong environmental measures build a long-term economic base, create jobs, mitigate and slow the effects of climate change, provide energy security, and augment the US’ world leadership. Security, economic opportunity, environmental improvement and an enhanced global role and status, you’d think that would be an easy political sell. Yet, it has proved to be anything but.

The easiest thing in the world would be to blame the forces of darkness- the usual suspects (you know who they are.) Their strategy has been obvious and utterly predictable. It’s also been effective. And that is the failing of the Administration and where the blame lies as it is the White House that has the ability to lead in way that Congress can never do.

In simple terms, just as it failed to do initially on healthcare, the White House has failed to build a populist and convincing narrative for change. And what a failing. It could have placed its environmental policy at the core of post-recovery argument. Beyond recovery, what is the vision for a long-term, balanced economy? The irony is that President Obama gets this. His brilliant speech at the Carnegie Mellon University demonstrated that he gets it at a very profound level. Here are his comments on investment in clean energy:

“And that’s why I’ve said that as we emerge from this recession, we can’t afford to return to the pre-crisis status quo. We can’t go back to an economy that was too dependent on bubbles and debt and financial speculation. We can’t accept economic growth that leaves the middle class owing more and making less. We have to build a new and stronger foundation for growth and prosperity — and that’s exactly what we’ve been doing for the last 16 months.

It’s a foundation based on investments in our people and their future; investments in the skills and education we need to compete; investments in a 21st century infrastructure for America, from high-speed railroads to high-speed Internet; investments in research and technology, like clean energy, that can lead to new jobs and new exports and new industries.

This new foundation is also based on reforms that will make our economy stronger and our businesses more competitive — reforms that will make health care cheaper, our financial system more secure, and our government less burdened with debt.”

And:

“But the only way the transition to clean energy will ultimately succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future — if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution.”

His expression of the role of the state in all this (the speech also covers education reform and investment in general) is about right:

“The role of government has never been to plan every detail or dictate every outcome. At its best, government has simply knocked away barriers to opportunity and laid the foundation for a better future. Our people — with all their drive and ingenuity — always end up building the rest.”

So the case has been made. What has not happened is that the case has been translated into a mission. The corporate lobbyists have been confronted on their terms- the case has been an intellectual rather than a political one. It seems clear that the Carnegie Mellon University speech was designed to provide a framework for an economic and social mission. Yet within just a few short weeks a core argument of the speech- that the US will not change without a national carbon price- has been shot down.

What is most remarkable about all this is the context. And yes, I do mean the spill or to quantify it more precisely- the Gulf of Mexico environmental catastrophe.

In 1969, President Nixon- yes, you read right- responding with political alacrity to the Santa Barbara oil spill. Rolling Stone reports:

“By another logic, the disaster in the Gulf should have been a critical turning point for global warming. Handled correctly, the BP spill should have been to climate legislation what September 11th was to the Patriot Act, or the financial collapse was to the bank bailout. Disasters drive sweeping legislation, and precedent was on the side of a great leap forward in environmental progress. In 1969, an oil spill in Santa Barbara, California – of only 100,000 barrels, less than the two-day output of the BP gusher – prompted Richard Nixon to create the EPA and sign the Clean Air Act.”

The meaning of the Gulf of Mexico disaster is important. As the US tries to release its dependence on dangerous and potentially hostile nations to meet its energy needs, there will be an increasing temptation for it to attempt ever more risky oil exploration and drilling in its indigenous territory. As this pursuit becomes more risky then the cost increases enormously: and the costs come in lost human life, environmental destruction, as well as economic costs. The only benefit is security. That shouldn’t be underestimated given the high cost of US foreign policy in the last decade but it is an extremely skewed approach. The point about Deepwater Horizon is not BP negligence (and that is still being established or not) but the inevitable breakdown that comes once risks reach a certain point. It’s not chance or luck; it is simply a matter of time.

Whatever the aesthetic merits, solar and wind power do not present anything like the same risks. However, alone they may be a security of energy supply risk. Nuclear power poses much less risk than deepwater drilling though the cost of any breakdown is enormous in well-being, economic and environmental terms. There is no perfect alternative solution to reliance on foreign oil. However, with vision, strategy and capital mobilisation, there may be a better balance of risks, costs and benefits. That will require leadership. Unfortunately, that is sorely lacking at present.

One hope remains. Back in 2007, Massachusetts and eleven other states took the Environmental Protection Agency to the Supreme Court on account of its refusal to regulate Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act 1969. They won.

The EPA now has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Legislative attempts to curtail that authority have failed. No doubt any attempt to use that authority in a meaningful way will lead to charges of communism and the like so there will need to be a sophisticated political strategy to accompany any move by the EPA to take action. In the short term, using the EPA’s legally sanctioned authority may provide a way forward.

American political history is littered with irony. What this course would mean in effect is that an agency created in response to an oil spill in 1969 would help shift the US onto a more environmentally sound course. It would also make Richard Nixon an environmental hero. Strange how things turn out.