| A few months ago at an event for a group of youngish Democrats in DC, I ran into one of General Jim Jones's staffers at the US Chamber of Commerce. It's odd to find a Democrat at the US Chamber of Commerce, since that is one of the most partisan and ideologically conservative groups in the country. We had a nice chat, and he essentially led me on to believe that Jones was heading up the Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy to make some money after his time in the military. I don't know how much stock to put in this conversation, but it's quite common for generals to make money after leaving the military, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jones just didn't know or care that he was working for a hardcore conservative group. Military leaders respect industry leaders, and vice versa.
Anyway, this conversation became relevant recently because Jones is going to be Obama's National Security Advisor, and he'll place special emphasis on energy security. I have some background in the politics of climate change, so I spent time on the plane today reading through the recommendations of his energy center to get a sense of this man's priorities and thought processes. While I don't know him or how he works, after reading Jones's transition plan I have come to share the Center for American Progress's Brad Johnson's hope that Obama is setting energy policy and Jones is on the periphery of any policy formulation role. |
|
Based on this policy document, it's clear that Jones is not only not a progressive, but stands in clear opposition to the need to reconceptualize how our society uses and distributes energy. Dealing with climate change is not about switching gas powered cars for battery operated Teslas, it's about changing from a mindset where consuming resources at an ever increasing rate is seen as a virtue to a mindset that focuses on community, sustainability, and ruthless cooperation to ward off the greatest threat humanity has ever seen.
Jones diagnoses the energy problem within the context of national security and business interests, and in doing so, he's pretty reasonable. He discusses the economic costs of energy shocks, energy poverty, and resource nationalism, but he is essentially as conservative as it is possible to be on the substance without outright denying global warming. For instance, he argues that "whenever government tries to pick winners and losers, whether through burdensome regulations, central planning, or open-ended subsidies, it fails, and taxpayers and consumers pay the price." But he also argues that the US should commit to and expand clean coal and nuclear energy with huge Federal subsidies, while eventually phasing out renewable energy tax credits after twelve years.
It's pretty dishonest to argue for specific energy technologies, including a fund controlled by fossil-based utilities with taxpayer capital, while arguing that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers, but it's also standard DC fare. In keeping with this tilt, Jones argues that "climate policies must not provide a revenue windfall to the government", suggesting that carbon taxes are off the table, and that national climate policy should be contingent on an international agreement. For good measure, Jones also thinks the Clean Air Act should not regulate carbon, and that Federal standards should preempt state standards. I'm not sure if he means that California's greenhouse gas laws would be invalidated, but that's what Bush and the US Chamber of Commerce were trying to get done, so I wouldn't be surprised.
All in all, this is what CAP's Brad Johnson describes as a rehash Bush's policy of "Don't just sit there, do nothing." Considering Jones's portfolio is on the national security front, and that he wants to focus on energy, this conservative ideological tilt translated into policy is something to note. Whether Jones was simply operating at the behest of the people paying his bills, whether he's going to take clear orders from Obama, and what the ultimate policies are going to be, are unknowable. Jones's positions on energy are to the right of Obama's, but they are fairly mainstream within the cross-section of DC in both parties that rejects denying climate change outright but wants to find a solution to the problem that involves keeping the same people in charge who got us into the mess in the first place. |
