Disruptive crises have historically shaken the status quo and generated inflection points, which portend profound changes in the direction of policy and behaviour. The gravity of a sudden and life-threatening problem, for which no easy solution is available from the toolkit of existing ways and means, focuses anxious social attention on a shift to alternatives. Whether this struggle to alter the course in a particular domain succeeds depends on the level of political mobilisation at a given time as well as the quality of leadership.
Amidst a disastrous, yet-to-be-stemmed oil spill from BP?s rig off the Gulf Coast, the US today finds itself on exactly such a cusp. With a humongous average oil consumption rate of 21 million barrels of oil per day, only 6 million barrels of which are domestically produced, the US remains a myopic prisoner to petroleum in an age when predictions abound of the coming peak and decline of this non-renewable fuel.
President Barack Obama?s first speech from the Oval Office this week latched on to the environmental tragedy unleashed by BP?s slick to try and engineer a decisive turn away from the country?s fatal obsession with oil. While the immediacy of the moment required a robust political intervention from Obama on compensation claims and the epic clean-up, he also reminded Americans that a greater systemic issue loomed on the horizon?a toxic American trait of guzzling excess oil, which is the root cause of all the frenetic and unsafe offshore drilling.
Obama promised a ?new future? based on an accelerated transition to clean energy sources, dropping catchphrases like wind turbines, energy-efficient windows and solar panels as priority areas for boosting innovation and industrial infrastructure. Challenging doubters who contend that the transition away from fossil fuels is too risky because alternative green technologies are yet unproven in their financial viability, he made the statesmanlike claim that ?we can?t afford not to change?, as inaction would entail ?far greater? long-term costs to the US economy and national security.
This ?BP speech?, as it is likely to be remembered, bears eerie similarities to the famous ?Malaise speech? of President Jimmy Carter in July 1979, when an American leader first articulated a vision for cutting oil consumption and reducing ?excessive dependence on OPEC?. The crisis, which prompted Carter to issue this televised speech from the Oval Office, was the second oil shock that followed the Iranian revolution. With gasoline lines stretching as far as the eye could see and rationing in order, Americans felt a sudden pinch due to vicissitudes of international oil cartels and political upheavals. Carter outlined a theoretically radical plan to conserve energy through practical everyday measures in individual households and also announced the ambitious target of 20% of the US? energy mix coming from solar power by the year 2000.
What came after this landmark speech, in which Carter was apocryphally described as dressed in a cardigan to drive home the principle of saving gas for heating, was a counter-revolution of sorts. Ronald Reagan won the presidency and re-established the political ascendancy of ?Big Oil?, rolled back fuel economy ideas and cut the renewable energy R&D budget by 85%. The government watchdogs meant to hold oil corporations to account for environmental and consumer protection were also retrenched, leaving the field open for the energy lobby to operate with unfettered freedom.
The colossal failure of Carter?s attempt to attack American consumerism and oil addiction left a general legacy of cynicism about any genuine political push towards green energy solutions in the US. Only the pocketbook logic of economic downturns seemed to be able to at least temporarily decrease American demand for petroleum products, the last instance of which was seen after the financial crisis of late 2008. Such falls in oil consumption are not lasting or a fundamental kicking of the habit but minor adjustments that leave the malaise intact.
The striking similarities in martial language about energy crisis and ?war? used by both Carter and Obama, and the dull response to both speeches from the political establishment and the general public, may suggest that this time would not be any earthshakingly different. There are politicians galore in the US Congress, who are recipients of oil industry largesse and who have gone about arguing that the Gulf Coast spill should not be ?used inappropriately? to constrict offshore drilling activity in entirety.
It has not gone unnoticed that Obama himself is a recipient of campaign financing from major energy corporations, including the spotlighted BP. The resignation of Van Jones, the White House environmental advisor, in September 2009 was a big blow to marshalling a federal government-led alternative energy boom. Jones had laid down the concept of a ?green collar economy? and a ?green New Deal?, in which eco-entrepreneurs from the private sector ally with elected leaders who ?will pass bills to aid them?. By positing a national political consensus behind the ?best of the business world?, Jones was essentially devising a political master plan to sideline the Big Oil interests. His exit dented the prospects of renewable energy entering a commercially feasible phase.
Given these structural impediments, will Obama?s oratory suffice for American society to eschew its insatiable thirst for oil? Just before the BP speech, he appealed to his massive grassroots presidential campaign network to lend a hand for transforming the US energy horizon. As political scientist Horace Campbell says, the power of Obama?s mobilised ?network of networks? to move mountains should not be underestimated. Green America is still distinctly possible if leadership and mass mobilisation mingle on a bridge called alternative energy.
The author is associate professor of world politics at the OP Jindal Global University