Posts tagged “energy security”
In the United States, too often we think of the Caribbean as a very nice place to visit. Throughout our history, though, it has been far more important. Last week, ASP released a report looking at the unique challenges of energy security in the Caribbean. This will be the first of a series of articles showing the challenges faced in the region by energy insecurity, why that is important, and give some solutions.
The islands of the Caribbean have always been too small to control their own geopolitical destinies – they are blown by winds far from their shores: colonialism, slavery, or the Cold War.
Around the Caribbean was where the Monroe Doctrine, designed to keep Europeans from interfering in the Americas, was tested throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was where the U.S. first learned that it could be a regional and then global power on the world stage.
Forty Years After
In October 1973 the United States and other Western countries experienced a new phenomenon: an embargo on oil deliveries from a group of the world’s largest oil exporters, imposed in response to our military support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War then underway. Last week I attended a session in Washington hosted by the US Energy Security Council commemorating these events. It included a fascinating conversation between Ted Koppel and Dr. James Schlesinger, US Secretary of Defense at the time of the embargo and later the first US Energy Secretary.
The other, related purpose of the meeting was a presentation and discussion proposing that fuel competition provides a surer means of achieving energy security than our pursuit of energy independence for the next four decades following the Arab Oil Embargo. This idea warrants serious consideration, since energy independence, at least in the sense of no net imports from outside North America, is beginning to appear achievable.
As regular readers of this column are aware from time to time I will host provocative perspectives on the energy industry. The failed nomination of Ron Binz to be the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which was formalized with his withdrawal from consideration on late Monday night, was unprecedented in Washington. The role of FERC has never been the subject of public of political interest – and I’d argue that few people (in Congress or otherwise can actually explain what FERC does) – so the sudden acute interest that resulted in no confirmation vote and Binz’s eventual withdrawal is well worth examining.
My friends at Operation Free (a campaign of the Truman National Security Project and Center for National Policy, is a coalition of over 5,000 veterans and national security experts advocating for securing America with clean energy) have been watching the FERC nomination process, and have expounded the view of many energy insiders that Binz’s failed confirmation represents an important and troubling development in the evolution of America’s energy industry.
Ron Binz, the once leading nominee to be the next Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, announced Monday evening that he had formally withdrawn his name from future consideration for the post.
To be sure, Binz is a highly qualified candidate who has spent his entire career working on energy regulatory issues, and he would have brought needed vision and leadership to a post that is critical for diversifying our energy portfolio and strengthening our national security.
Unfortunately, members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee resorted to bitter partisanship, dooming his confirmation based on a fear and misguided assumption he would encourage prioritization of renewable resources over legacy coal and oil sources of energy.
Their excuses not only illustrated a lack of understanding of FERC’s authority, but also they were inaccurate and pose a serious threat to America’s energy future.
As citizens from Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia, we know the benefits that traditional energy sources have provided to the growth of our nation and states’ economies. While we acknowledge these sources – like coal- will continue to play an important part of our nation’s energy mix, in order to strengthen our national and economic security, it is critical that we continue to find ways to diversify our energy options and reduce our carbon emissions
I work on energy policy for a national security think tank, so I am often asked to talk about energy security. Last week, I participated in a conference in which we were asked to comment on “U.S. Energy Security: How Do We Get There?” As I listened to the presenters at the conference, I realized that how you viewed the problem of ‘Energy Security’ depends on how you identify it. We all seem to have determined that energy security is a problem, but we each had different understandings of what the term ‘energy security’ actually means! Of course, that means there were very different prescriptions for how to ‘solve’ the problems of ‘energy security.’
In the absence of a definition, everyone defines energy security differently –both speakers and listeners. It is something like the late Margaret Thatcher said about the politics of consensus: “it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” Along those lines, I believe that ‘energy security’ has devolved into simply a buzzword: a phrase that everyone favors, but defines differently. Pundits, politicians, lobbyists, industry, and campaigners from across the political spectrum cry ‘energy security’ because it polls better than their preferred policies. I have done it as well. Listeners, then, are misled because, really, who could actually be against ‘energy security?’ It is like being against mom, America, and apple pie.
Energy Security Trust
Energy policy is a major topic of discussion during almost every State of the Union address. The most recent address was no exception, with President Obama devoting a substantial portion of his speech toward reviewing recent energy accomplishments, and then promoting new energy initiatives.
One of those initiatives was one of the three major energy policy recommendations that I promoted in my book Power Plays. Here was President Obama’s version during the State of the Union address:
I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a nonpartisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we. Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long. I’m also issuing a new goal for America: Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.
This week I was reading an article from the Associated Press called Some fracking critics use bad science. The gist of the article is that Gasland director Josh Fox used false information in his new film, The Sky is Pink. Among other things, he claimed that cancer rates were higher in Texas where fracking is taking place. Three different cancer researchers in the area contradicted him on this claim.
But then the article went on to say something that I thought was very relevant to debates on just about any controversial energy topic — fossil fuel subsidies, climate change, hydraulic fracturing:
One expert said there’s an actual psychological process at work that sometimes blinds people to science, on the fracking debate and many others. “You can literally put facts in front of people, and they will just ignore them,” said Mark Lubell, the director of the Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior at the University of California, Davis.
Lubell said the situation, which happens on both sides of a debate, is called “motivated reasoning.” Rational people insist on believing things that aren’t true, in part because of feedback from other people who share their views, he said.
As a result, misinformation is hard to stamp out, because it tends to be repeated — confirming the views people already hold. That brings me to the topic of today’s column: Climate change claims around the Keystone XL pipeline.
America’s relationship with Middle East energy resources is changing. Technological breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”), renewed drilling in ultra-deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico and, soon, drilling in the Arctic Circle are re-energizing U.S. domestic petroleum production and shrinking the demand for foreign petroleum imports. Meanwhile, oil and natural gas production in the Americas — from Canada in the North, to Brazil and Colombia in the South — are beginning to displace U.S. reliance on Middle East oil. These emerging energy trends will affect America’s relationship with the Middle East in important ways. But do not expect a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy in the region any time soon.
The Carter Doctrine and U.S. Energy Interests in the Middle East
The United States has had historical concerns about assured access to Middle East petroleum resources that have shaped U.S. involvement in the region. President Jimmy Carter famously declared in his 1980 State of the Union address that the United States reserved the right to use force to protect the flow of petroleum from the Middle East to the United States: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
Although U.S. interests in the Middle East have become more complex since the Carter administration – to include concerns about violent extremism, human rights abuse and nuclear proliferation – it has become almost axiomatic to say that U.S. involvement in the Middle East has been tied solely to concerns about securing access to the region’s petroleum resources. Whether or not one buys that, the perception that U.S. interests in the Middle East are tied solely to concerns about energy supplies raises some questions about whether the United States will lose interest in the Middle East as it becomes less reliant on energy imports from the region.
A Moderate Willing to Work With Both Sides
I just wanted to take a quick moment to lament the loss of Senator Lugar to the Senate. He lost his Republican Primary election for the Indiana Senate seat last night by an astonishing 21 points. The issues of energy and environmental security, especially in how they affect America’s foreign policy, were central to his 36 years in the Senate. There were many other factors that helped bring him down — his age, the fact that he no longer lived in Indiana, and his votes on TARP and President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.
Senator Lugar played a unique role in American energy and environmental policy because his position has really marked the center of American politics on these issues. That means that he’s been willing to work with both sides to get things done, and it also means that his views have shifted as the country’s views have shifted.
When I worked in the Senate, I had the opportunity to work with his staff on the Foreign Relations Committee, and there were few people anywhere on the Hill who were more professional. They simply were interested in seeking the best solutions on important issues, regardless of whether that solution came from the right of the left. One of my proudest moments was working to introduce and pass legislation for a clean-energy bank — now operated through the World Bank — that helps to fund clean energy development around the world. This truly was bipartisan, introduced by Senators Lugar, Biden, Menendez, and Hagel (my boss at the time). I am afraid, however, that this election marks the end of such solution-oriented legislating for a long time.
A study on energy supply conducted by a German military think tank reports on the potential for serious consequences as oil production declines.
The following guest essay is by Kevin Kane. Kevin is an energy market strategist, Asia political affairs analyst, and Korean language linguist living in Seoul, South Korea. Kevin previously published American Freedom from Oil: A Bipartisan Pipedream. Energy Security Populism: Oil Prices, American Leaders, and Media By Kevin P. Kane American leaders and news outlets often refer to American-company overseas oil field purchases, oil & gas discoveries, freedom-from-oil initiatives, and offshore drilling as vehicles towards energy security. These efforts do not, and cannot, enhance oil security for the U.S. without simultaneously increasing global oil security—defined as insulation from price and supply shocks. Inaccurate views and statements coming from our leaders continue to misinform the public about the nature of oil… Continue»