AHC: President Carter gets a lot done on energy policy.

I personally think Carter was too far ahead of his fellow citizens. It was like he was trying to lead when he was already a mile down the road.

So, how do you think Carter could have got a lot done on energy between 1977 and '81?

Bonus points if Three Mile Island still occurs on March 28, 1979.

Carter and Congress needed to be on the same page and as you said, he was already a mile down the road without many following.

TBH, history's proven him entirely right on that score.

I don't have enough in-depth knowledge of Congressional leadership and what policy pitched/tweaked how would have gotten them (and the voting public) on side.

Also, an honest account of TMI would've revealed how little danger everyone was in.

What made the public reaction to TMI so hysterical was that nuclear power was a question mark and kept that way from early 1960's on b/c the US military developed it and the AEC went out of its way to minimize and hush up nuclear problems rather than confront them.

The Soviet record was even worse and kept under tighter wraps until Chernobyl made it impossible to hush up.

As to what the US could've done with a saner nuclear energy policy--Paging Asnys! View attachment 239044

Until Asnys weighs in, I'd say the US goes more with more nukes, not less in its quest for energy independence.

Also, if the 1979 energy crisis goes into effect as OTL, Carter gives the oil industry carte blanche to drill, baby, drill and build more refinery capacity as well as push CAFE standards so folks burn less fuel to get around.

Congress could wiegh in and push more mass transit funds, new building standards,tax credits to insulate housing and retrofit more efficient HVAC systems, and other bits to reduce energy consumption would do a lot to help as they did, just much later. More alternative energy R&D would be nice, too.

<Theme music starts>

<Shot of a masked rider, approaching. He pulls up. His horse is glowing Cerenkov blue. He speaks.>

<Theme music dies away.>

TxCoatl1970 said:

As to what the US could've done with a saner nuclear energy policy--Paging Asnys! View attachment 239044

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Carter was pretty stringently anti-nuclear, and the AEC's nuclear energy R&D program had already made a number of very unfortunate choices by then. Basically, by this point they'd already shot themselves in the foot, and it would be hard to get the bullets back in the gun. Given the parameters of the OP, with a PoD in 1977 or later, it's hard to see how much could have been done.

Hi ho, plutonium, and away!

<Theme music rises again.>

<The masked rider rides off into the distance.>

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

ROFLMAO!

Sorry the symbol doesn't work until you click it.


OK, that scotches my plan for a more pro-nuke energy policy.
Curses! Foiled again by reality!

The other stuff's OTL, though.

GeographyDude said:

I personally think Carter was too far ahead of his fellow citizens. It was like he was trying to lead when he was already a mile down the road.

So, how do you think Carter could have got a lot done on energy between 1977 and '81?

Bonus points if Three Mile Island still occurs on March 28, 1979.

Click to expand...

Carter had problems with Congress. To implement his ideas on this magnitude, he needs a different personality, more support, and more charisma/ruthlessness. He can't just chide people Mr. Rogers style. America by the late 70s is a country where people seem to be slipping and are hanging on to what they have. Asking for sacrifice flat out won't do it. He needs to deal with other problems for the population first in order to get a chance at this… in short, 1977 seems a bit too late to get something grand started. The country was getting more right wing.

I think a better idea in terms of chances of effectiveness would honestly be no Watergate and trying Project Independence out right when the oil crisis hits and it is all over the news (without Watergate, it will be the top thing) and people MIGHT be willing to go with it. Furthermore, Nixon is not anti-nuclear, which regardless of how one feels about it is going to be part of any successful plan in the short to mid term in the 1970s… but even with this, I think that getting TOTAL independence is going to be difficult. The US is not known for having a long attention span.

I agree with you that Carter's ideas in energy were miles ahead and we were fools for not implementing it. Reagan took the solar panels down… *sigh*. If I could change one thing about Reagan it would be his energy policy.

Carter tried to cancel some water projects early in his presidency, and it was not well received by Congress.

Reagan did something similar. In fact, on March 31, 1981, the morning after the president had been shot and as he was lying in a hospital bed, his aides Mike Deaver, Jim Baker, and Ed Meese came by. And the first piece of legislation Reagan signed in the hospital was a bill either reducing or stopping a scheduled increase to dairy price supports.

Very similar to Carter and the water projects. Except with Reagan it was well received and with Carter it wasn't.

GeographyDude said:

Carter tried to cancel some water projects early in his presidency, and it was not well received by Congress.

Reagan did something similar. In fact, on March 31, 1981, the morning after the president had been shot and as he was lying in a hospital bed, his aides Mike Deaver, Jim Baker, and Ed Meese came by. And the first piece of legislation Reagan signed in the hospital was a bill either reducing or stopping a scheduled increase to dairy price supports.

Very similar to Carter and the water projects. Except with Reagan it was well received and with Carter it wasn't.

Click to expand...

Because Reagan knew how to smile and be an effective politician and how to inspire the people and how not to be condescending. Carter didn't.

Also, most of the time, if the President gets an attempt on their life or is responding to a huge crisis-or any public figure, really-people are more willing to work with them all of a sudden. Sympathy from the populace is huge in motivating Congressmen, who want to keep their offices. Why else was Congress so acquiescent when Bush repealed all the powers they had gained since Watergate post 9/11. They knew they couldn't be seen as obstructive, for their own sake.

So Carter needs to get wounded about Feb 6, 1977? Maybe afterwards, have someone either in his administration, or on the Hill, try to cut a deal behind Carter's back that energy reforms go through, and a nice defense contract goes to the right districts? Carter wouldn't support it, but that's the great thing about morphine! A few weeks later, colonial garb, US flags, signing "US Energy Independence Bill," and a nice cake? Bonus points if we can get Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Bush in different careers from it? Asking seriously (and musing before seriously), would a Reagan like wound be enough?

Please keep in mind that if Reagan signed the bill reducing dairy subsidies the morning after he had been shot, the thing most likely was passed by both Houses before he was shot.

Okay in late '76 as president-elect Carter waits to take office, the likely House Speaker Tip O'Neill is getting a surprising amount of press coverage since he stated a figure that the U.S. should be at least 70% energy independent.

Carter takes a deep breath and soft-pedals this, saying something like, okay, I might hope for a little more, but 70% is a good place to start.

Jimmy does not really go along with Tip's idea that this should also apply to steel and other major industries. So, President Carter anticipates globalization with an emphasis on transparency of corporate behavior.

* OTL, globalization has lifted a number of persons out of poverty. It would work even better if corporations were better behaved.

The problem is also Reagan and pals.

He gleefully openly and happily reversed moves toward greener energy and all this in his presidence. Fighting a 'communistic privation from consumation' or something.

A famous documentary on the rise of ecologism in the USA show you well how that happened.

And as the Reaganomics shown as later neoliberalism, Globalization DUMPED peoples in more poverty as well.

There certainly have been abusive factory conditions that don't need to be that way. But honest to gosh, I think globalization has been a net winner as far as lifting people out of poverty.

There was a film critical of Walmart about 15 years ago called something like, the high cost of low prices. And this guy's job was to certify factories in Guatemala. And he said he bled blue. He was a very loyal Walmart employee. And then he said he found out they didn't really want to know. They just wanted him to sign off in a pro forma way.

Might point being, things could have gone even better.