Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

By Stephen Lacey, Editor

The last month was a big one for energy. Oil prices reached two-and-a-half year highs; Japan dealt with a nuclear power plant on the verge of a meltdown; the one-year anniversary of the Gulf Oil disaster neared; and the International Energy Agency, historically known as an interest group for oil producing nations, issued a report calling a more aggressive build-out of clean energy to offset declining oil production and climate change.

And what did policy makers in Washington, DC do?

The House of Representatives passed a bill stripping the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; Republicans in the House and the Senate crafted legislation that would abandon a 2007 law – signed by then-President Bush and supported by lightbulb manufacturers – that created better efficiency standards for lightbulbs through 2014; and in a final dig to Democrats, Republicans repealed the Greening the Capitol Initiative and brought back Styrofoam cups and plastic utensils to the cafeteria in place of biodegradable ones.

With the geopolitical, environmental and social consequences of our energy choices mounting, it seems policymakers still can't get beyond tit-for-tat politics and make serious decisions.

“Both sides have taken out their fiddles, and they're fiddling...while Rome burns,” says John Hofmeister, the former President of Shell Oil, founder of Americans for Affordable Energy and author of the book, Why We Hate the Oil Companies.

“I see every evidence that these folks are going to stumble and bumble, and fight one another like kindergarten children...That's not good enough. We need to do better,” he says.

Since Richard Nixon first proposed becoming energy independent in the mid-seventies, we've gone through eight presidents and 19 congresses – with very little to show for it. Although the scale of biofuels, wind, solar and geothermal is much greater today than it was 35 years ago, the U.S. is further away from energy independence than ever.

Hofmeister says both parties are to blame.

On the left (which he calls the “Ludicrous Left”), the aversion to hydrocarbons of any kind creates unrealistic expectations about how quickly the energy system will shift. Hofmeister believes renewables should be developed as quickly as possible for environmental and energy-security reasons, but also believes that coal, oil and gas will continue to be an important part of the mix for economic reasons.

On the right (which he calls the “Reckless Right”), the lack of attention to competitive renewable alternatives means that we fail to create a consistent environment for long-term investment, thus perpetuating an antiquated energy system in need of serious reform and allowing environmental problems to mount.

“What the political parties have done is create an either/or mantra for the future of energy...but it's good politics. So we're letting 'good politics' determine our energy and environmental future...I'm offended by the lack of attention to the nation's needs.”

The closest thing Americans have gotten to a comprehensive energy plan is Obama's “Sputnik Speech” in January's State of the Union address, in which he called for 80% clean energy by 2035. But Hofmeister says there's a big difference between a vision and a plan. Obama may have a vision, he says. But he does not have a comprehensive plan to achieve that vision.

So how could government create a fair, long-term plan in such a partisan atmosphere? Take the responsibilities out of the hands of Congress.

Since his book was released, Hofmeister has been traveling the country advocating for an independent regulatory body, called the Federal Energy Resources System, that would control energy policy much like the Federal Reserve manages monetary issues. Members of the commission would hold 14-year terms and would not be influenced by the political winds of the day.

Rather than rely on the dozens of executive and congressional agencies that currently formulate policy, the Federal Energy Resources System could dictate infrastructure investments, incentive levels, energy quality standards, permitting and siting requirements, as well as address environmental and scientific issues that get politicized by lawmakers.

It's a great idea in theory, but it hasn't gotten much traction in Washington yet.

“Policymakers and K Street lobbyists hate what I'm proposing,” says Hofmeister. “It takes away their authority...If 19 Congresses can't get the job done, don't tell me the 20^th Congress will – I don't believe you. I think we've proven this isn't going to work.”

Meanwhile, as the political mess in Washington gets worse, business leaders in the clean energy space – one of the fastest growing sectors in the U.S. – are finding it difficult to plan beyond the end of the year when federal incentives may again come to a halt.

We may not have a comprehensive energy strategy to keep America competitive. But at least members of Congress can rest easy knowing that they're upholding the American Way of Life by clutching onto their incandescent lightbulbs and plastic silverware.