Energy? Climate change? Linked? Huh?

November 20th, 2007

Posted by: admin

How does a high-level federal policymaker go on and on about energy policy, energy “balance,” energy technology, clean coal, etc. without the slightest nod to climate change? I’m not sure how it can be done with a straight face, but Texas Senator John Cornyn tried it here Monday in a Dallas Morning News op-ed, and it really is a work of art.

I won’t reproduce the 700-word screed here, but it is captivating reading. The word “energy” appears 33 times. Climate? Warming? Not once.


It’s not that the Senator ignores the climate change link. It’s not even that I think a discussion of energy policy must in all cases discuss climate. No, what’s fascinating is the pains it took to dance around the issue in the article without once mentioning it, as if trying to pretend the issue doesn’t exist. You can’t read the article without knowing that its entire existence owes itself not to the debate over energy security (as Cornyn pretends in the article) but to the debate over climate change responses running through the Senate and House. Senator Cornyn’s article is really about the current field of play on climate change politics and how it does and will affect energy policy for Texas, yet he manages to rant on the subject without ever mentioning the climate context. The pointed stand I’m sure is lost on nobody. To his Texas constituents it says, No matter what we do on carbon, I’m fighting for unrestricted, even expanded fossil energy extraction.

At this point, with RGGI, then the WCI and now the MGA, almost the entire country except for the south/southeast is throwing down the gauntlet. Even Kansas is making bold moves in the energy/climate policy area. A look at Pew’s map of regional climate initiatives is pretty telling. Hell, Senator, even OPEC is talking about climate change now.

Senator Cornyn’s op-ed does one thing: it paints very clearly the climate policy battle lines, and provides a strong reality check for the attitudes that are and are not changing. If you can’t get a U.S. Senator to deign to mention climate in a 700-word piece on energy balance, you can see dirt flying from the trenches as they get dug deeper. Of course, not everybody in Texas sees things the same way. When the private equity market speaks that loudly, it makes me wonder who the Senator is getting his advice from.

3 Responses to “Energy? Climate change? Linked? Huh?”

    1
  1. The Heretic Says:

    Gee Kevin,

    Maybe that’s because we *know* we are going to need energy, but the uncertainties around climate change are so immense it really doesn’t make sense to shoot in the dark fighting it – if we need to. If you disagree, maybe a more in-depth reading of the AR4 technical summary is in order. Please pay particular attention to said uncertainties. There is no question that a massive investment in climate research is needed before we go clipping the wings of the economy.

    Of course all that uncertainty is lost as the political forces come into play when one reads the propaganda in the Summary for Policymakers – and you’re a political science kind of guy, aren’t you…

    Did you give a favorable report on the Emporer’s New Clothes too?

  2. 2
  3. ConfusedCollegeStudent Says:

    Perhaps a better criticism of Sen. Cornyn’s op-ed would revolve around the simplistic and agenda-hiding text he uses. Cornyn doesn’t even name the pending energy legislation, so constituents who want to know more about the legislation are forced to find this out themselves. Better criticism of this op-ed would attack Cornyn’s extensive use of cliches (“We must pass reform legislation that protects our economy, helps American consumers, including at the gas pump…”) that aren’t specific enough and wouldn’t pass muster with a scrutinizing American consumer.

    It’s easy to see that Sen. Cornyn is not as pro-active on climate change as other elected officials are, but in an editorial that is ostensibly about the merits of new energy policy, it’s not totally unreasonable for him, and within his own right, to omit global warming from his op-ed. It may not be right ethically given an assumed need for people to know about global warming, but criticism of his article can focus on other things, too, that speak of his efficacy in actually helping the public.

  4. 3
  5. ConfusedCollegeStudent Says:

    Perhaps a better criticism of Sen. Cornyn’s op-ed would revolve around the simplistic and agenda-hiding text he uses. Cornyn doesn’t even name the pending energy legislation, so constituents who want to know more about the legislation are forced to find this out themselves. Better criticism of this op-ed would attack Cornyn’s extensive use of cliches (“We must pass reform legislation that protects our economy, helps American consumers, including at the gas pump…”) that aren’t specific enough and wouldn’t pass muster with a scrutinizing American consumer.

    It’s easy to see that Sen. Cornyn is not as pro-active on climate change as other elected officials are, but in an editorial that is ostensibly about the merits of new energy policy, it’s not totally unreasonable for him, and within his own right, to omit global warming from his op-ed. It may not be right ethically given an assumed need for people to know about global warming, but criticism of his article can focus on other things, too, that speak of his efficacy in actually helping the public.