The next President of the Unties States has the potential to reshape the future of American prosperity by developing a comprehensive, innovative, green energy policy. President Bush’s failed strategy to secure unlimited access to oil in the Middle East has led 80 percent of Americans to believe the country is on the wrong track. John McCain’s energy policy is non-existent. Barack Obama’s energy policy takes a cue from what people in Colorado already know.    

Colorado citizens passed a voter initiative for a statewide Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) back in 2004. It became the first state in the union to implement a renewable energy policy and is still just one of two states to do so by voter referendum. The Colorado initiative, known as Amendment 37, requires major power providers in the state to produce 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2015 (it has since been updated to 20 percent by 2020).  Since its passing 21 other states have passed similar RES legislation. 

The emphasis on developing alternative sources of energy in the United States has reached a drastic climax, yet previous state measures were passed in spite of the federal government. Research and development for alternative and clean energy has basically been halted under the Bush administration, which allocates about $440 billion annually to the Pentagon but hasn’t produced one clean coal plant.

Barack Obama proposes establishing a 25 percent minimum federal Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2025. He also plans on investing $150 billion over the next 10 years into clean energy and doubling the funding for energy research and development.

The United States of America dominated the 20th century by producing and manufacturing the best products in the world. The Pentagon budget is used to export the best existing product America has to offer: Death. Optimistically this is not something the next generation of Americans will want to base their existence on. If the next century is going to be a continuation of the “American Century” we must stop relying on pilfering other countries’ natural resources and start developing our own. We have the technology to diversify the world’s energy needs, let’s start using it.

  The first step in this lengthy process is to create a federal RES. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) visited Capitol Hill last November to raise support for a House bill co-sponsored by Colorado House Reps. Mark Udall (D) and Diana Degette (D) - both politicians scored 95 percent from the League of Conservation Voters.  The bill would’ve created a federal RES, but it only managed to pass in the House, not the Senate. This measure has generated a lot of bipartisan support at the national and state level. It was congressman Udall’s ability to reach across the aisle and team up with the former Colorado Speaker of the House, Lola Spradley (R), that finally got the original 2004 legislation passed. A similar bill later failed to pass the Senate by only one vote, but a presidential veto probably awaited it anyway. The initiatives failure to become law leads to traditional public skepticism about government corruption and influence. It’s become hard to imagine politicians passing legislation that directly confronts corporate interests.

It wasn’t easy for Coloradoans to pass Amendment 37, and it won’t be easy for Obama to pass national legislation, although a democratic congress will help. Energy companies have invested millions of dollars into public campaigns to dissuade politicians from siding with progressive initiatives – and why not, they can obviously afford it. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s leading energy provider, defeated the states attempts to pass new energy policy three times before succumbing to the will of the people. The corporation even put up $500,000 to fund a front lobbyist group, called Citizens for Sensible Energy Choices to disseminate negative information about the proposal. Xcel also posted articles in their monthly customer statements expressing their opposition to the bill (Now that Xcel is on board with the initiative they’re being lauded for their support).

When the inevitable push is made to implement a national standard the same can be expected of other major energy corporations, especially those located in regions that lack easy access to renewable resources. They will pump millions of dollars into lobbyist groups with misleading titles (like Citizens for Sensible Energy Choices) in not-so-covert attempts to control the political and public dialog. The energy corporations argue that policy should be left up to the states, even though the energy companies receive state and federal tax breaks. These state-by-state initiatives logically decrease efficiency – if a company has to meet one standard in Indiana and a different standard in Iowa production costs will go up, consumers in both states will pay more – but they’ll of course prolong record profits for energy giants. 

The most basic logistical argument for a national energy standard advocates the creation of digital regional grids. These will allow huge, multi-state energy companies to provide efficient and reliable service to their entire customer base.  A national energy standard also sets a clear goal for energy companies to meet. If every state has a mandate to produce at least 25 percent of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2025, energy companies will be able to focus on producing results. Additionally, a federal mandate will encourage competition in the marketplace and create thousands of new jobs that can’t be outsourced.

Renewable and alternative fuels aren’t the only resources the government should be pumping billions of dollars into. Investment for research and development in natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear energy will also be a priority.  

History has proven the best motivator for corporate innovation is government intervention. We would’ve won the Cold War without sending a man to the moon but that didn’t stop NASA.  We didn’t need the atom bomb to defeat the Japanese but the Manhattan Project continued. The U.S. could continue to scour the earth for new oil reserves but that plan of action - the John McCain plan - would only reduce us to the level of our past opponents, who relied on outdated policies to defeat an enemy of the future. The world’s petroleum demand has already started to cut significantly into U.S. consumption, which is currently at 24 percent, and we’ve failed to secure access to the Persian Gulf’s stockpile of black gold. With crude oil prices the highest in history, it's time to look to the future.

The success of America in the 21st century will depend on what answers we produce to defeat China, India, Brazil and the Middle East on the next global frontier. We can’t just bomb them because they’ve got bombs now too. We can’t keep competing for the same resources as them because they’ve got the numbers. We’ve got to create a new paradigm. An emphasis on implementing a comprehensive federal energy policy is an absolute necessity.

If the politicians won’t fight the war to develop a new energy policy, it may have to be won the way the first battle was: by the people.