Americans elected clean energy and clean air champions up and down the ticket last week. Even though oil, gas, and coal companies spent more than $270 million on campaign ads in the past two months, the majority of people rejected their dirty agenda. Voters want healthy air and safe drinking water, not more pollution.
Our leaders should keep this in mind as they negotiate a way off the fiscal cliff as Congress reconvenes this week. If Congress fails to reach an agreement, automatic, across-the-board spending cuts would kick in, making it much harder for the government to deliver the health and environmental protections people value.
We would feel these punishing cuts in our daily lives. Imagine if the sewage treatment plant in your community didn’t pay for repairs and had to start dumping raw sewage into nearby beaches. Or imagine if you traveled to a National Park for an affordable family vacation and discovered the visitor center was shuttered and the campgrounds closed down. Or imagine if air monitoring stations in your city ran out of funding and it became harder to tell when it was safe for children to play outside or when asthma-causing pollutants were running high.
Our country’s budget deficit is a serious problem, but crippling programs Americans count on is not the answer.
The natural resources section of the budget—including programs protecting our air, water, lands, and parks—makes up only 1.4 percent of federal spending. Their funding has already been cut, since most efforts to control the budget so far have concentrated disproportionately on discretionary spending. Slicing too deeply into programs that have already taken a hit would be both harmful for the environment and unproductive for deficit reduction.
America can get on a path to deficit reduction without making our air dirtier or our water unsafe to drink. To achieve this goal, Congress must negotiate a deal that prevents automatic budget cuts from taking place. Congress needs to take a balanced approach in such a deal. That means revenue increases need to be an important part of any solution. The president has been very clear on that point, and he is right to make it a condition for any deal.
One part of raising revenues should be ending the practice of favoring mature oil and gas corporations—among the richest in the world—with billions of dollars in subsidies. Our tax policies should be helping companies install new clean energy technology across the country. Congress should extend the very successful production tax credit for wind energy, which has broad bipartisan support.
Congress is facing a fundamental choice about the kind of country America is going to be. Some GOP lawmakers would use the genuine need to cut the deficit as a cover for shrinking the size of government and destroying environmental programs and safeguards.
But President Obama and many other leaders believe government has a legitimate role to play in creating a vibrant society and a healthy environment. Last week’s election repudiated the anti-government, budget-shredding agenda in favor of more balanced, sustainable approach. Congress should heed these results.
Frances Beinecke is the President of the National Resources Defense Council
Photo by Thomas Hawk under Creative Commons license




18 Comments

Thanks for this, Frances. Any “fiscal-cliff” would be shut down quickly if we were talking about ending oil and gas tax subsidies.
But we are not talking about any cuts to big corporations but adding expenses to the just above poverty level segment of our society. This fiscal cliff is a slope and many people have been on it for years and now they are talking about steepening it. The depression for the middle class is on the way and no one in either party in power cares. Environment has been under attack by Corporate entities forever and now there are no checks and balances. Macondo proved that, KXL proves that, “Clean” coal proves that, and every day more fracking wells are drilled along with unfettered oil drilling. If you double the EPA’s funding the people who work there are still captured by Monsanto, exxon, du Pont etc.
There is no difference IMO between Public Relations and Public Policy and both are being promulgated by the Propaganda machine of the MSM and the Government.
I wondered why this essay was so horrible. And then I saw that it was written by a left-wing mucky muck.
Let’s see…
And
And
Upon what evidence are these statements based? Oh, that’s right. It’s just how you think when you’re part of the Veal Pen.
Thanks for this, Frances.
I wonder if you might explain how you came to this conclusion, Frances:
“Americans elected clean energy and clean air champions up and down the ticket last week.”
Eric Patton caught the other glaring errors, but heterodox economists have shown that we’re not threatened by deficits necessarily, and for instance, increasing the deficit through massive greening America jobs would yield great fiscal returns. The MMT adherents add another whole dimension to the debt nonsense.
How about this blast from the past?
Sorry. You lost me here:
Whatever happened to the person who wrote that article, anyway? She was really smart. Kinda hot, too.
I hope she’s okay.
I think that the idea of Obama as Puritan scold holds up well across a number of indices. Start with lecturing Black fathers about the need to stay at home (he’s not really Black, nor did he know anything about Black fathers, it turned out, since they stay home more than white ones, but America gobbled it up!). He’s not really all that into gay people, either, to tell the truth. But like Iraq, it fetches votes. And the Rushdoony Republicans make such easy pickens. From there to valuing budgets (budgeting–good stuff!) over hungry children (they won’t go hungry if you budget wisely!) or disciplining Pakistani villagers with drone bombs (your choice to continue this miserable subsistence farming over stable sweatshop employment is the cause of your misery; Adam Smith could have told you that!) is an obvious step.
Okay, I get the veal pen thing now; it was Jane not DDay. gotta go back and look at your previous piece.
As to the ‘left-wing mucky-muck’ theme, I really did try to find the list of this year’s attendees at Bilderberg because we were laughing about what they are, and aren’t on one of my posts a few months ago.
And while it’s not definitively probative, as far as I remember, NRDC was the only ‘environmental organization’ to have a Rep included. Yes, it’s only funny, but still… But I did decide to not feel guilty for not having any money to send them any longer. ;o)
Suffering is good for the soul?
Its helpful to distinguish which parts of the mis-named “cliff” we are describing. Yes, the automatic across the board spending cuts in the insane sequester from 2011, one of the most irresponsible measures our irresponsible Congress passed would devastate many worthwhile programs, including environmental. On the other hand, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would not, nor would letting the inhertance rates go back to previous higher levels affect environmental protection directly. Also, other measures set to expired, like extended UI, while hurting lots of vulnerable people, worsen unemployment and hurt the economy, but not the environment per se.
So where is the threat, in addition to the auto cuts in the sequester? It’s in the fact we have a House full of delusional anti-regulatory zealots, anxious to stop any regulation that threatens the profits of the fossil fuel industry, and a Senate full of members on both sides who are in the pockets of that industry and who remain willfully ignorant of economics. Environmental protection has been under vicious siege for years from Congress, independent of any cliff. And it has been slowed down by the White House’ Cass Sunstein’s corrupt review and watering down of proposed and much needed EPA regulations, some of which then get buried or delayed.
The phony defict-debt crises is just the current pretext and dishonest cover story for measures the American people would strongly oppose. So I’d say any effort to link the assault on environmental protection to the deficits, which our best economists explain are NOT in crises but are essential now to keep the economy afloat, or the misnamed “cliff”, is misguided and not where envirnmentals should be going.
Congress can fund environmental protection, including addressing climate change, if it chooses to do so, or is pushed by an alarmed electorate, irrespective of any cliff. On those lines, a recent Zogby poll says the American people are increasingly alarmed about the environment and climate change, and so would likely support any elected officials, including Congressperson or the President who honestly explain this and do something useful, cliff or no cliff.
Zogby poll.
“Zogby poll.”
thanks for that link.
Excellent panel in DC yesterday on the phoniness of the “deficit crisis. The presentation slide show should be required viewing for White House and Congress, and media, who mostly didn’t show up.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Economists-Look-For-Ways-to-Avoid-the-Fiscal-Cliff/10737435786-1/
Polls show what the majority wants and Government does what the minority tells them to do. We would be in pretty good shape if we made decisions based on polls rather than Pols.
Obviously monopoly that got rich by
investing in adversity and now encourages
its creation so as to invest in it is
expensive economically and biologically
(for humans presently.)
The one little but I think very meaningful
point I think a lot of progressives themselves
miss is that any govt program conforming to an
oligopolistic market will primarily benefit the
oligopoly.
That’s why Boehner’s quick to declare ObamaCare the
law of the land, and why Lieberman/Conrad/Baucus like it.
Could whoever put this
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/03/mythfactshcr-2.pdf
up
please indicate where I can self-verify
this: ah, yes, Item 16 in the chart:
There will be
an elimination of lifetime coverage limits, a high risk
pool for those who have been uninsured for more than
6 months,
That obviously renders ObamaCare nothing
more than a cruel hoax. The charade of a
chameleon.
To get there the perfectly upper middle class guy
would have to choose wiping his/her family out
or getting taken to the cleaners in what’s obviously
a program of protecting monopoly prices and monopoly
pushing off of risk.
So, I’m asking for the exact Article in the
Health Affordability Act where that’s found.
Obviously it replaces a shell game but this one
more thoroughly bleeds the population monopolistically,
it looks.
Let these arrogant fucks make all the deals they want, the cake is baked , the train has left the station. Mother Nature ultimately makes the real calls and when a species somehow crosses the line it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference how or why they do. Were right now 42 ppm of CO2 over the line and if we had any commonsense or any sense of self-preservation we’d be doing whatever it took to get our sorry asses back under the that line and fast. Instead, it appears we are going to go skidding off the cliff Thelma and Louise style, our collective foot metal to the proverbial peddle. It’s almost unbelievable to realize this really is probably the end of an age, but there is no escaping the facts anymore.
Helpful post; thank you.