The Sins of the Fathers are the Sins of the Sons

What happens when a growing new industry threatens the power and the profits of Big Oil? Why, environmentalists win, of course! Doing a double-take? You are not the only one.

Growing demand for alternative sources of energy has many proponents turning to solar power. The technologies behind concentrating (heating water to produce steam energy) and photovoltaic (converting solar energy directly to electricity) have improved dramatically in the last quarter-century, reducing costs and increasing applications. And some of the best places in the United States for solar installations are located on millions of acres of public land in the American West. (If you have ever driven Interstate 10 from El Paso to Los Angeles, you know exactly what I mean.)

As a result, the New York Times reports, dozens of companies are applying to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for permits to install solar panels on barren, unused public land.

Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land in the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California, where sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.

Galvanized by the national demand for clean energy development, solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management since 2005. They center on the companies’ desires to lease public land to build solar plants and then sell the energy to utilities.

According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.

It sounds like a win-win situation, and it almost is: the only losers come in the traditional energy industries, particularly petroleum, coal, and natural gas. However, the positives are clear. Solar power is a renewable resource; the others are not. Millions of acres of Western land are sitting unused, when both private companies and the federal government could profit from their development for solar power. The United States could take the global lead in developing solar power, generating thousands of green jobs that are powered by foreign and domestic sales.

Naturally, the Bush administration is on board, right?

Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.

The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

Suddenly when traditional backers of the Bush administration are threatened, environmental concerns become paramount. How did I not see that coming? Maybe because the usual Bush approach is delay and obstruction. The EPA refused to grant California a waiver for tough cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. The state of California sued the EPA to force its hand; automobile manufacturers preemptively sued to stop the waiver if the EPA was forced to give it. The automakers' suit was rejected on Thursday. Meanwhile, the administration has refused to release documents related to the EPA's denial of the waiver, citing executive privilege.

According to the Los Angeles Times, both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain have pledged to support the waiver if elected. Hopefully, this BLM moratorium will be treated in the same way. So add these topics to the long, long list of items that wait for Bush's retirement to his ranch.

[h/t to Grist for highlighting both stories.]

It's not time to panic

Barack Obama has brought many new people into the political process, and he has reinvigorated the progressive souls of many who stopped participating. For a long-time pol like myself, it is easier to see the shifts and changes that Obama is exhibiting as normal progressions in a campaign. For the groups of people I mentioned at the start, changes in public financing or FISA feel like a betrayal, and it has shaken their faith. I am here to tell you not to jump ship or even put on your life vests. It is going to be alright.

I am not disappointed about Obama's choice to eschew public financing; I somewhat expected it, and I know it makes my a hypocrite. I think there is merit in some elements of public financing, which is why I was disappointed that the Supreme Court voided the Millionaire's amendment today. Obama has played new media and new methods of raising funds brilliantly. As a writer whose name I forgot succinctly put it, any adviser who suggested staying in the public finance system would be guilty of "political malpractice". It would be folly to give up our huge advantage in the fuel of political campaigns when we finally have one. (UPDATE: It was Norman Ornstein who said it. Thanks, Dave! h/t)

I am terribly disappointed in Obama's positioning on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I have been hoping and dreaming of a Thurmond- or Byrd-type filibuster, one for the ages, where a senator talks for two days straight until relieved by another senator, and so on, until this bill dies. I did not like the "triangulation" I sensed in Obama's nuanced statements on the bill. But we are not single-issue voters. We cannot be if we expect to win.

Democrats have made errors, for example, in taking African-American and gay voters for granted. The party sometimes acts like those voters have a natural home in the party, that they vote on only one issue (race or sexuality), and that they will stay. Those voters are more savvy than that, and while one issue may have more importance than others, it will not be the only issue upon which they decide.

Obama supporters, we cannot be single-issue voters, either. We cannot act surprised that our candidate does not embody perfection on every issue. He does not deserve our blind loyalty, but maybe sometimes we have to cut him some slack, too. He is out there working hard to broaden this coalition, so that our victory in November can be subject to no doubt. When he makes these moves, to the extent we are able, we have to stand by him. Surely we can pressure him to adopt our position. But if not, and when it is not an absolute deal-breaker, we have to keep the faith.

Remember what is at stake here. The future of Roe v. Wade depends on this election. The future of our loved ones in the armed forces depends on this election. The future of our environment depends on this election. The future of our security against economic threats and energy crises depends on this election. Keep your eye on the ball.