Energy & Environment

The Clean Water Act is 40 years old today and the nation should celebrate the accomplishments of this landmark legislation.

As we near the end of 2012, we can look back and say we’ve made remarkable progress on cleaning up the nation’s waters.

Forty years ago, people were afraid to swim or fish in our waters, our lakes and our rivers. And quite frankly, we didn’t have the resources to address the issue.

This election season, the Sierra Club has rolled out a campaign called “Toxic Money, Toxic Votes” that identifies six Republicans it claims are “toxic candidates” who allow oil and coal money to influence their votes.

Despite the proverbial chicken and egg problem in trying to prove cause and effect with political donations, this campaign might not be so bad if the Sierra Club had actually targeted candidates who are well known to be close allies of oil and coal. It didn’t. The organization had entirely different criteria. All six of the Republicans it targets are battling in tight campaigns listed in the Cook Political Report as “toss-up” races against Democrats.

Access to critical minerals and metals is vital to America’s militarystrength and economic health. As we move further forward into the technology age, we need a range of non-fuel minerals – from antimony to zinc – for defense technologies that protect the homeland and project American power abroad. These same minerals and metals underpin our manufacturing sector too, and the cost of raw materials impacts everything from productivity and innovation to economic growth and job creation.

Without smarter policies that increase access to resources under our own soil, America will continue to depend heavily on China, Russia, Kazakhstan, and other countries that don’t have our interests at heart.

In his recent post, Biotechnology Industry Organization’s president and CEO James Greenwood brashly minimizes important and ongoing  concerns of many Americans when claiming that because the drought is subsiding, those calling for adjustments to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) are merely “not allowing this crisis to go to waste.” In reality, the RFS is monopolizing 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop for use as ethanol, inflating food prices and damaging the environment.

As Election Day approaches, issues such as new energy production, energy jobs, and state economic recovery are figuring high in people’s minds and could well influence how people vote in November. If President Obama is returned to office, what can America expect regarding the Administration’s energy policies in a second term?

The recent adoption of a new national average fuel economy standard of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by the year 2025 is not only one of the most important energy policy moves of the past quarter-century, it is also a big win for consumers.

This past summer, as parts of the Midwest faced historic droughts and farmers and ranchers struggled with the impact of failing crops, a group of governors petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend the federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) as a way to provide relief. As temperatures cool and the drought stabilizes, it’s clear that government programs to provide emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers worked as intended. Yet, the call to suspend the RFS remains.

The Obama campaign has worked over-time trying to convince voters that the president understands the challenges confronting the middle class, while Romney is out of touch. Yet deeds speak louder than words, and American families — already struggling with rising gasoline and grocery prices, under-water mortgages, and high unemployment — should note how this Administration has taken actions to increase the costs of cars, while simultaneously making them more dangerous. How is exactly does that help the middle class?

Since the Arab Oil Embargo of the mid 70’s, the government has set rules dictating a base level of fuel efficiency, which is known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations, or CAFE standard. This month, the Administration doubled the requirements on the fuel efficiency of cars, vans, sports utility vehicles, and pickup trucks.

Several months ago, with gasoline topping $4 per gallon in most parts of the U.S., it looked like energy policy would be a front-burner issue in the Presidential election. But the recent drop in crude oil and gasoline prices — with the exception of California where refinery shutdowns and transmission problems have led to temporary price spikes — has derailed energy as a hot-button campaign topic. This is unfortunate because $4-plus gasoline was a reminder that America does not have a sound energy strategy and that we need one both for economic and national security objectives.

The voters we talk to across America can tell you a lot about what Washington has done wrong: the bickering; the perceived lack of attention to the important issues facing the country; the redundancy and waste. The glum ratings they report to pollsters like us are not just attributable to concern about the economy, but often are grounded in skepticism about whether or not their leaders are up to the tasks at hand.