The argument that climate change is a long-term security concern is strong (see CNA’s report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change). The argument is also fairly strong that American power would benefit if the U.S. were to take the lead on innovating energy technology (see Thomas Friedman’s recent column, in which he warns of a sort of energy technology gap, in which a Chinese lead on energy innovation precipitates China’s rise).
So what is standing in the way of America taking the lead on energy innovation?
Particularly relevant are the first and fourteenth amendments and how they have been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and even more specifically, the “Hillary: The Movie” case currently before the court (click here for more info). Most people believe that in its “Hillary: The Movie” decision, the Court will rule against current campaign finance law, making the U.S. campaign finance system “less regulated than any time since Watergate,” according to campaign law expert Richard L. Hasen. The Supreme Court, it seems, will fulfill its traditional function, which is, to quote Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, from their book, Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe:
For much of American history, and at least until the end of World War II, the courts played a major role in rejecting legislation that was perceived as antibusiness. A most notable example was a decision of the Supreme Court in 1894 against the introduction of a federal income tax. It took the sixteenth amendment of the Constitution almost twenty years later to pass the federal income tax in the United States. During the Progressive Era, in the early part of the nineteenth century, the courts were a formidable obstacle to the establishment of a European-style early welfare state, despite the notable efforts of many social reformers. Scocpol (1992) defines the United States as a “court dominated” state and notes that between 1900 and 1920 courts struck down about 300 labor laws (p. 227). Judges “invoked constitutional prohibitions against special, or class legislation.”
Thomas Friedman warns:
This is a strategic inflection point. It is clear that if we, America, care about our energy security, economic strength and environmental quality we need to put in place a long-term carbon price that stimulates and rewards clean power innovation. We can’t afford to be asleep with an invigorated China wide awake.
While the New York Times reports:
The United States Chamber of Commerce, the goliath of the lobbying world, is expected to outline its battle plan next week for the midterms. It spent $25 million on advertisements and get-out-the-vote efforts in the 2006 elections and $36 million in 2008, and will spend far more this year, chamber officials say. And in the last election it was already probing the limits of the court’s rulings with commercials like one in New Hampshire denouncing Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, as “a taxing machine.”
Is the U.S. hoist by its own constitutional petard?
