The always interesting Ron Brownstein writes:
Rarely has the Democratic Party identified as unconditionally with an industry as it is doing today with the emerging clean-energy sector, the companies and investors leading America’s transition toward a lower-carbon economy that relies less on fossil fuels and more on efficiency and such renewable power sources as solar, wind, and biomass. If the industry grows as its supporters hope, this emerging alliance could profoundly shape not only the nation’s energy strategy in the 21st century, but also its politics.
Because they generate so much wealth, energy interests always influence politics. For decades, oil and gas companies have treated Washington like an especially lucrative well: They have pursued tax breaks (such as the oil depletion allowance) and diplomatic help in securing supplies abroad while resisting any other federal economic or environmental regulation, such as limits on the carbon emissions linked to climate change.
To support its agenda, oil wealth has long funded conservative politics. The industry, especially the fiercely anti-government independent producers who emerged in Texas in the 1930s, provided gushers of money–first to oil-patch Democrats like Lyndon Johnson and Robert Kerr, and later to Republican politicians and conservative campaigns considerably to the right of those men. Through the late 20th century, oil titans like H.L. Hunt, Hugh Roy Cullen, and the Koch family provided huge sums to causes that ranged from uncompromisingly conservative to crackpot paranoid. Even now, the oil and gas industry remains a bedrock source of funding for Republicans: From 1990 through early this year, the industry contributed $241 million to federal campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Three-fourths of that money went to Republicans.
People tend to underestimate the influence that special corporate interests like energy companies wield. It’s not just campaign donations, it’s the so-called think tanks that generate WaPo op-ed and CNN talking head propaganda.
I’m all for clean energy and all for replacing AEI, the Heritage Foundation, and the McArdle fiance charity fund with better institutions. But there’s also a level at which I fear that as we enter what is likely to be a long period of Democratic political domination, we’ll be merely exchanging one set of corporate masters for another.
srv
You mean idiots. I don’t know any people who underestimate the influence of special/corporate interests.
And “through the late 20th century” – news to me if the Koch clan has gone soft.
jeffreyw
For some reason, the idea of a depletion allowance for sunlight and wind made me giggle.
Comrade Jake
Aren’t we talking about corporate masters whose influence is likely to be dwarfed by that of the banking sector? I understand the concern here, but let’s not lose sight of the 500-ton gorilla walking around.
Alien-radio
A dominant green energy industry-democratic power axis would have one major benefit, internalising external economic costs that at the moment have almost no impact on debate. shrink the carbon energy industry down in size so that it can be drowned in a bath tub, then you get to work on the external cost assciated with the green energy industry-democratic power axis i.e. political disenfranchisement of the poor.
it’s a worthy alliance to make because we can’t beat both costs without doing it.
Jay B.
But what’s the downside of clean energy pumping millions into infrastructure and campaign coffers? To me, it’s like the Democrats’ alliance with the unions. Unions don’t always do the right thing of course, but overall, they are a necessary balance against management interests and stand for the right things. Big Green might get kickbacks, but so long as their science is good and their products work, it’s endlessly better than the current situation. You could also point to the Democrats’ alliance with Silicon Valley — which may be closer to what Brownstein is talking about here.
Until they outlaw mega-corporations — and right now, the Green energy industry is a few big ones and throngs of basement start-ups with some huge VC money behind them — they will always have the government’s balls. Those who stand opposite of the Big Polluters have my support.
SGEW
This is an excellent point, and one that I honestly haven’t given enough thought to. From an anti-corporate perspective (Nader ’96!), the concept that a “new energy industry” will simply replace the current kleptocracy is alarming, disheartening, and expectedly outrageous.
However, from an environmental perspective (and a global humanitarian perspective as well), this is still a net benefit, regardless of any continuation of corruption or the dominance of democracy by business. If the ExxonMobil corporation was just as anti-democratic as they are now but was effectively carbon neutral, I’d still be jumping for joy.
DougJ
However, from an environmental perspective (and a global humanitarian perspective as well), this is still a net benefit, regardless of any continuation of corruption or the dominance of democracy by business. If the ExxonMobil corporation was just as anti-democratic as they are now but was effectively carbon neutral, I’d still be jumping for joy.
Yeah, I agree.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Kevin Phillips has written extensively about this, most particularly in American Theocracy.
No 1966 midterms in lurking up ahead in our future, then? What will the Rick Perlsteins of the future write about?
If I could get a set of corporate masters that aren’t actively trying to destroy the biosphere, or playing Las Vegas casino games with trillions of dollars, or wedded to the idea of the US spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, I’d being willing to settle for that. I’m easy to please that way.
John Hamilton Farr
Not much doubt about THAT, amigo…
Leelee for Obama
Like I said yesterday, you ride the Donkey and poke him with a stick. Dems in alliance with an energy sector growing jobs, infrastructure, revenue and possible Climate Salvation doesn’t strike me as something to fear. Control, cajole, oversee, yes. Fear, no, not at all.
John S.
The “corporation” as we know it needs to be destroyed. Until the people that run these companies have to be held responsible for their actions instead of being able to hide behind the legal non-entity known as the corporation, things will be fucked.
He’ll, any kind of responsibility would ne nice to see in the world today. If only actions had consequences for people beyond childhood…
John S.
The problem, leelee, is getting off the donkey without getting eaten.
Oh sure, right now the donkey is an herbivore and you can kepp him happy with carrots, but after a few decades of feeding from the money trough, I think you will find his tastes have changed.
Power always corrupts. There are no exceptions.
anonevent
As the Mighty Wind industry pushes those who can produce less wind out of the way, we’ll look back fondly on those who drilled holes to produces something that then had to be burned.
Leelee for Obama
@John S.: Niebuhr said something about understanding that power corrupts and still working for good. Obama talked about with David Brooks, of all people. I know the Dems are likely to succumb to the siren. I’ve seen it. But that is what the stick is for. Part of the problem has always been the lack of a well-informed electorate. Recently that situation has been compounded by a media that doesn’t tell the people, but the people have to want to know, and to act on what they know. It’s not a matter of actually electing the other guys, which is how things work now, it’s a matter of raising better Democrats, just like I tried to raise better children. Carrots and sticks-the threat of not voting for them is usually enough to wake them up. We need more people writing, and warning the people we send to DC.
Leelee for Obama
I need to add: I know they think we’ll not vote for the other side, and they are somewhat correct. However, what keeps the Rethugs in line-the threat of a primary opponent to their right. Dean is calling for primaries from the left-see Joe Sestak. This is really more in line with the stick I meant. And there’s always money. We proved that grassroots fund-raising is awesome sometimes, didn’t we?
MBSS
DougJ, i think you make a salient point.
it is always helpful to take a hard look in the mirror, politically, personally, or even globally. it’s painful, and often you don’t like what you see, but that’s the only way to make productive changes.
i would echo what others are saying about the relative benefits of one corporate entity over another. but, it would behoove us all to tread carefully, and watch carefully.
The Other Steve
That’s awsome that McArdle’s husband was able to get some good old fashioned wingnut welfare.
par4
People tend to forget that there wouldn’t be any corporations at all without government approval.
NeonBlack
I for one, welcome our new clean energy corporate overlords.
Martin
Except that it would be a fair bit different. Any time you have a major economic disruption like that, you tend toward more and smaller new players in the market. 20 wind companies simply won’t exert the same influence as 1 oil company with the same revenues.
The other advantage to a green energy economy is how heterogeneous it is. Wind only works in some areas, and land-based wind and off-shore are different in their nature. Solar varies, geothermal is regional, etc. That assumes you can shove transportation energy back to the grid.
You’ll still have an oil lobby, because you’ll never eliminate petrochemical, which is a pretty big chunk of the industry even if you dump oil->electricity and oil->autos, but it’ll have more balancing forces than it does now. This all assumes that public utilities won’t find a way back into the marketplace, which you might if Congress can start to ratchet down on carbon. There are simply going to be some markets that private industry gives up on as unprofitable, and that’ll let the public back in.
Sean
well done dougj.