Budget

All it took was one sentence in President Obama’s State of the Union Address last week, and an oft-maligned energy source was back on the map.

“To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives,” the president said. “And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”

A few days later, the White House budget was released and called for an increase in government loan guarantees for nuclear reactors from $18.5 billion to $54.5 billion.

U.S. President Barack Obama proposed a federal budget today that would begin to tip the scales away from fossil fuels and toward greater government investment in clean energy.

It would eliminate several fossil fuel subsidies, a move expected to generate about $36 billion for the federal government over the next 10 years, and increase clean energy research and development spending by about $6 billion.

To sweeten the deal for Republicans and fossil fuel-state Democrats, the president piled on loan guarantees for nuclear power and reiterated his support for a nuclear revival, more off-shore drilling, and “clean coal” technology, which was heavily funded through the recovery act last year. In addition, the new budget offers only a passing reference to a future cap-and-trade program, describing it as carbon neutral rather than assuming it would generate revenue.

Whether Congress can carry through on the president's recommendations remains to be seen, however.

Twenty years ago, the Exxon Valdez plowed onto Bligh Reef in a pristine Alaskan inlet and let loose 11 million gallons of crude oil while the captain slept and the Coast Guard ignored the ship's course.

The deadly viscous goo devastated fish, birds and other wildlife. It also seared our consciousness as a symbol of environmental negligence and brought calls for greater safety measures to protect our fragile world.

Two decades later, our global climate is perilously warming, and our economy has run aground as its captains ignored the dangers in a binge of profiteering and risky economic shortcuts. Our poor treatment of the environment and neglectful stewardship of the economy share a genesis. Both result from a fixation on short-term financial results, our stubborn denial of consequences, and a refusal to prudently protect our future.

As the Obama administration's stimulus package makes clear, the two issues also are joined in remedy.

It’s time for a reality check in the contentious debate over the investments President Obama has proposed to fight global climate change and build a new energy economy.

As Ken Burns once put it, “we need a little more Pluribus and a little less Unum” in the United States these days. Instead, a newly outraged Outrage Class is firing bullets made of silly putty, hoping some will stick to the new president.

Here are some prominent examples:

Burdening Our Children With Debt

A frequent argument from fiscal conservatives is that borrowing money to build a new energy economy – including the investments contained in Obama’s stimulus package and his 2010 budget proposal – will place an unconscionable debt on our children. Reacting to deficit projections from the Obama budget, for example, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said: “We simply cannot continue to mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future to pay for bigger and more costly government.”

But the debt we should be most concerned about is our carbon debt. It’s a far more serious threat to future generations.