Last Night's Debate: Help or Hurt Renewable Energy?

10/04/2012 12:19 PM

SustainableBusiness.com News

What did you think/ feel about last night's presidential debate? How did it help or hurt green business and in particular, renewable energy?

From our point of view, Romney carried the debate - and unfortunately, moderator, Jim Lehrer, let him. President Obama seemed pallid in contrast to Romney's aggressive engagement - many people are criticizing his "subdued" performance, while others say he remained "calm and centered" - important qualities for a president.

At the outset, Lehrer said he wanted to focus on "specifics," but he never pressed on distortions presented on the issues.

Dozens of issues that hurt Romney and that have been front and center in the campaign didn't get a mention. He presented his ideas in a way that seemed reasonable and empathetic, while deflecting Obama's attempts to show how many of his claims lacked factual basis.

While we could cover many of the issues they discussed, our focus here is on energy and green business. It's not a surprise that climate change wasn't discussed - we've learned to expect that.

There were no questions about national energy policy, or the role that renewable technology can play in igniting our economy sustainably.

When asked about his policies that would create jobs and grow the economy, President Obama brought up energy production as important - he pointed to his record of boosting oil and gas production and developing a strong renewable energy industry. Romney said he'd drill more on public land (not mentioning that could include our national parks), drill more offshore, approve the tar sands pipeline and yes, he likes coal. That much is true as we've seen in his "fossil fuels above all" energy policy and his energy advisors.

Regulation

Sticking with his ultra-reasonable demeanor, he even expressed support for regulations ... except all the ones Obama has tried to issue, from Dodd Frank to the EPA. He falsely led the audience to believe Obama has vastly increased regulations, when in fact he's issued far fewer than his predecessor.

"Mitt Romney's basic strategy in the general election campaign has been clear for months - use rhetoric that appeals to the middle while embracing policies that appeal to the right. That strategy was in full flower at tonight's debate as Romney repeatedly used sweet-scented rhetoric to lure voters to accept poisonous policies. Perhaps the clearest case in point was the discussion of regulation," says David Goldstein from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

While Romney appeared to be a paragon of reason, making a well articulated case for why regulation is needed and even in business' interest, his record shows otherwise, says Goldstein.

For example, "Romney endorses the REINS Act, a bill designed to shut down the entire regulatory system. In fact, he's said he'd try to implement it by executive fiat if Congress didn't pass it - which would almost certainly be unconstitutional."

$90 Billion for Green Energy in One Year

Romney did get in two jabs against the $90 billion Obama spent to support the clean energy industry under the Recovery Act.

Quite effectively, he brought it up in response to Obama's comment about eliminating subsidies for oil companies. Romney managed to give the impression oil subsides don't amount to much, especially when you compare that to the huge renewable energy subsidies of $90 billion!

Romney said, "Now I like green energy as well, but that's about fifty years of what the oil and gas industry received."

That's a lie, but most people watching wouldn't know that.
As the Green Scissors campaign points out, oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries receive over three-quarters of all energy subsidies and allowances, about $300 billion a year.

When Obama said he wants to develop renewable energy as well as fossil fuels, Romney said he likes renewables too. That's not true, of course, if you look at his positions and have heard past comments such as green jobs are "fake" and "illusory," renewable energy is unreliable and "pie-in-the-sky, and electric cars are fantasy.

And what about Romney's statement that Obama gave "$90 billion in tax breaks to green energy in one year"?

A Washington Post blog puts it this way: "The Energy Department put $90 billion worth of grants, loan guarantees and loans into what it calls a "clean energy" economy. But that money is spread widely: About $3 billion went to carbon capture and storage projects needed to make coal "clean," a goal Romney shares; about $11 billion went to energy efficiency; about $5 billion went to clean up old nuclear weapons sites; about $4 billion went to modernizing the electricity grid; and about $2 billion went to research and development, which Romney has also supported. DOE has a breakdown here.

That leaves $67 billion for promising renewable energy companies and projects, which was to be doled out over several years. We learned this week that about half of that awarded last year has yet to reach recipients.

What have these clean energy investments spawned, asks ThinkProgress? "Renewable electricity has doubled in the last four years; we've built some of the most innovative "first of a kind" renewable energy projects in the world; domestic wind manufacturing has doubled; we've created more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in the solar industry; and leveraged $100 billion in private investments."

Here are some of Romney's other inaccurate statements on energy from ThinkProgress:

"About half of [the clean energy companies that] have been invested in have gone out of business."

This reference to the Solyndra situation is blatantly false. Michael Grunwald, who literally wrote the book on the stimulus package, estimates that about 1% of stimulus-funded clean-energy firms failed, not 50%

Most of the loan guarantees went to established companies for projects with long term power purchase agreements.

An independent group charged with evaluating DOE's program after being hounded on it for two years found no wrong-doing by DOE and in fact, lauded its success,

"Gas prices have doubled under Obama."

Demand was weak when Obama entered office because of the financial and economic collapse. Demand is stronger now, and thus prices are higher.

And as many analysts point out, presidents have little control over oil and gas prices because they are set by the global market. High oil prices lead to high gas prices.

"All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land."

Under Obama, domestic energy production has soared - the number of oil drilling rigs have quadrupled over the past three years, bringing US oil imports to the lowest level since 1996.

And the Congressional Research Service issued a report showing that oil drilling on federal lands is higher, not lower, much to the disappointment of the environmental community. The oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved drilling permits that it hasn't begun exploring or developing.

Not mentioned is the negative impact of increased fossil fuel production on climate change, air and water pollution, and on the renewable energy industry.

 Main article can be found at http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24147