Over the last two weeks, RFF scholars have critiqued the two major parties' energy and environmental policies as laid out in their respective platforms. Here's a quick look back.
The Republican Platform
- Alan Krupnick on energy independence and free markets:
The writers of the platform and those who endorse its view of energy policy ought to decide which of these they favor — energy independence or market forces, or whether they need some new goals. Actually both goals are wrongheaded, as well as being inconsistent with one another.
- Ray Kopp on climate policy - or lack thereof:
Wouldn’t the conservative thing be to buy some insurance, that is, govern in a manner that begins to reduce greenhouse gases now with a program that can be accelerated or adjusted as the scientific uncertainty is resolved? There are ways to do that consistent with conservative, free-market principles.
- My post on renewable energy policy:
As far as it goes, the platform’s position has a lot going for it. It’s also not surprising – renewable energy is broadly popular. But there’s not much meat on the bones. And once you scratch the surface, it shows frustrating inconsistencies about the platforms’ broader environmental agenda.
- Heather Ross on the meaning of liberty and the politics of environmental policy:
The platform speaks of an all of the above energy policy (pg. 15), but Republicans support billions of federal tax preferences for oil and gas companies and oppose tax incentives for renewables like the production tax credit for wind power[.]
The Democratic Platform
- Joel Darmstader on energy independence, regulatory safeguards, and climate policy:
The platform makes a brave attempt to portray the Democratic party as sensitive to the prospective risk from global warming. But the current administration has – no doubt for what it sees as salient political reasons – consciously avoided addressing the issue with the seriousness it merits. The claim of party concern therefore demands more evidence.
- Tim Brennan on green jobs:
I’ll confess up front that I agree with the Obama administration that the fiscal policy has a role in job creation when faced with a persistent recession. I’m less comfortable with the claim that policies to promote clean energy and energy efficiency are part of the solution. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t adopt such policies, only that we do so with a clear sense that the environmental benefits they bring are not a free lunch.
- Alan Krupnick on energy subsidies:
Unsurprisingly in these economic times, government actions, to be taken by either party, are justified by the argument that they will create jobs. But there is no necessary relationship between subsidies to renewables and job creation. Such subsidies may disadvantage other fuels that are more labor-intensive, resulting in net job losses. (By the way, the same can be said for opening up new oil areas for natural gas drilling).
Both Platforms
- Danny Morris on international climate negotiations:
If the President wins re-election, we should expect his administration to continue its current approach to international climate negotiations . . . The Obama negotiating team has always said they won’t sign onto an agreement that won’t pass Congress, and activists constantly accuse them of being a barrier to progress as a result. They do think the process matters, though, and the US is currently a willing and constructive participant in negotiations, something that could change under a Romney administration.
