"By encouraging conservation, increasing investments in clean, renewable sources of energy, and promoting increased domestic production of oil and gas, we can build a more secure future for our country"
About this Quote
The sentence performs a familiar political sleight of hand: it sells a climate-and-energy agenda that sounds modern while keeping fossil fuels safely in the center of the frame. Ron Lewis stacks three clauses that don’t naturally coexist - conservation, renewables, and “increased domestic production of oil and gas” - then binds them with a single promise: security. The rhetorical trick is that “security” functions as a solvent, dissolving ideological tension. If the goal is national safety, the argument implies, any mix of policies can be made to look coherent.
The specific intent is coalition-building. Conservation reassures fiscal conservatives and outdoors-minded voters; renewables nod to technocratic, market-friendly climate action; domestic oil and gas is the unmistakable signal to industry, energy-state constituencies, and voters wary of price spikes. It’s an energy platform designed to offend as few donors and swing voters as possible, not a thesis about decarbonization.
The subtext is that climate policy is acceptable only when framed as patriotism and stability, not sacrifice. “Increased domestic production” is also a proxy for “less dependence on foreign suppliers,” a post-shock reflex sharpened by volatile global markets and geopolitical conflict. Even the verbs matter: “encouraging,” “increasing,” “promoting” - soft, managerial language that avoids hard trade-offs (limits, bans, timelines).
Contextually, this is the bipartisan American energy script: promise a cleaner future, protect today’s extractive economy, and wrap it all in the language of national destiny. It works because it flatters the audience into believing we can have transition without disruption.
The specific intent is coalition-building. Conservation reassures fiscal conservatives and outdoors-minded voters; renewables nod to technocratic, market-friendly climate action; domestic oil and gas is the unmistakable signal to industry, energy-state constituencies, and voters wary of price spikes. It’s an energy platform designed to offend as few donors and swing voters as possible, not a thesis about decarbonization.
The subtext is that climate policy is acceptable only when framed as patriotism and stability, not sacrifice. “Increased domestic production” is also a proxy for “less dependence on foreign suppliers,” a post-shock reflex sharpened by volatile global markets and geopolitical conflict. Even the verbs matter: “encouraging,” “increasing,” “promoting” - soft, managerial language that avoids hard trade-offs (limits, bans, timelines).
Contextually, this is the bipartisan American energy script: promise a cleaner future, protect today’s extractive economy, and wrap it all in the language of national destiny. It works because it flatters the audience into believing we can have transition without disruption.
Quote Details
| Topic | Vision & Strategy |
|---|
More Quotes by Ron
Add to List
