The future of energy in the United States is a testy topic these days.
Politicians, industry officials and special interests are fighting over partisan policy proposals.
All actors are fully engaged in the art of hyperbolic mouth breathing — depraved political theater at its finest.
The Obama administration wants to build a legacy of environmental stewardship and energy ?independence.
Not so easy in the current market, as these two tasks seem ever-at-odds. Regarding stewardship, the ?administration has put its political clout behind designating the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as ?wilderness.
This would liberate the landscape from oil and gas production, road construction, clear cuts and other ?industrial follies.
However, the administration also proposes opening up sections of the Atlantic coast for oil exploration for the first time in U.S. history. This would expose previously protected territories to industrialization and the risk of ?disaster.
Regarding ANWR, the U.S. Department of the Interior says this may be one of the largest conservation measures “since Congress passed the visionary Wilderness Act over 50 years ago.”
Opponents, such as Marita Noon, executive director of Energy Makes America Great and the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy, liken the move to Obama siding with the ?Russians in America’s new Cold War: “The anti-American accusation may be a bit of hyperbole — but, then again, maybe not.
When you connect the dots, it seems clear that President Obama is doing Russia’s bidding ...”
Apparently, Noon missed the ?Atlantic coast memo.
Regarding Atlantic exploration, DOI’s latest five-year plan calls for the government to lease southern coastal waters and new areas of the Gulf of Mexico to industry.
In a flip-flop, industry officials ?celebrate the move while ?conservationists remain stunned, ?dismayed and angered.
The media narrative around these proposals is business as usual, focused mainly on what these proposals mean for Obama’s environmental legacy, the jeers and cheers from congressional Republicans and Democrats on their respective sides of the issues, and the wishes and concerns of industry giants and deep-pocketed green groups.
Once again, the country’s energy future lies in the hands of those with ?access to the halls of power.
What’s missing from this ?narrative? The most important of social ?forces: you.
The market left has little regard for the vertical nature of the narrative. We envision vibrant social cooperation in the absence of centralized ?authority.
We believe in competition ?between polycentric institutions and federations under democratic ?control.
In short, we believe in the horizontal. Let’s look to one another as we craft the decisions that will cultivate the future of our communities — energy policy included.
In this libertarian order, environmental stewardship and energy independence will not be at odds.
Market actors will conduct cost/benefit analyses before harvesting ?resources. With the new burden of true environmental costs, such as the destruction of an ecosystem in the event of a disaster, a market mechanism for conservation will develop.
It is in our best interest to have resilient, healthy ecological communities because the ecosystem services they award are far too important for the cash nexus. The free society will be built by spontaneous order by individuals with agency over their labor.
Energy will be democratic, with decisions made based on community needs and natural limitations. The energy demands and environmental concerns of today are indeed great, but if we work together we can meet the challenges of the 21st ?century.
So let’s begin our labor, leave behind the hyperbole and build ?democratic energy.
Grant A. Mincy
More in Letters
The claim that education is uncomfortable is dismissive of the Black student experience.