It seems difficult to find areas of consensus on energy policy these days. For example, energy efficiency once received significant bipartisan support. That’s no longer the case.
Most agree that energy security is a worthwhile goal. However, each Congress, a vast number of pathways toward improved energy security are advocated – tighter fuel standards, expanded domestic oil production, clean energy standards, more nuclear, less nuclear, electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles, flex fuel vehicles, etc. – and very few, if any, achieve lasting, multi-stakeholder, bipartisan support.
In his recent book, “Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil,” energy analyst Robert Rapier suggests a few areas of agreement on energy security that might be used as the basis for stronger policy.
- Countries that are heavily dependent on other countries for their energy supplies face economic risks that are often beyond their control.
- Given the dominance of oil in the global transportation and manufacturing sectors, the world is likely to be dependent on oil for at least the next two decades.
- Even when supplies can be sourced domestically, an economy built on depleting resources must eventually transition to other sources and/or decrease energy consumption.
Do you agree that these are areas of agreement on energy security policy? If they are, what policies could come out of them? What areas of agreement exist for other energy policy issues? Efficiency? Nuclear? Natural gas? Distribution and infrastructure? Environmental protection? Economic development?
Just to be perfectly clear, I am talking about policies that could get wide support from both sides of the political spectrum. There aren’t a lot of areas, but there are some. I don’t believe nuclear is an area on which we could currently get a broad consensus (although I am in favor of nuclear power). But I think everyone would broadly agree that it would be a good idea to produce our own energy — other things being equal (i.e., it doesn’t cost double what it would cost to import fuel).
Robert
I have not yet read Rapier’s book, but I think, unfortunately, that he may be underestimating the intensity of partisan polarization in Washington, compounded by the increasingly paralyzing impact of the government’s growing debt burden. Even to the extent bipartisan action is possible, the ability of the federal government to marshal significant discretionary resources is rapidly shrinking.
For instance, while the recent federal highway/transportation bill was passed with bipartisan support, the $105 billion it authorized for the next two years was $20 billion less than requested. The result was widely viewed as little more than a bandaid on a system that is both physically and financially broken. The funding provided is far short of the $1.2 trillion over five years ($240 billion/year) that the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated is needed just to repair crumbling highways and bridges. The most widely publicized feature of the bill seems to be an amendment restricting roll-your-own cigarettes (!).
“I think, unfortunately, that he may be underestimating the intensity of partisan polarization in Washington,…”
I follow those debates as they pertain to energy on a daily basis. So I know that the areas of agreement are few, but they do exist. Do you think either major political party would disagree with the 3 points I have listed? If so, on what basis?
So I started with those points of agreement, and then suggested some sound energy policies based on those points. I think this is the logical approach for formulating energy policies that are sound and have a good chance of becoming law.
I think you have to decide your purpose. If you want a policy to reduce CO-2 emissions, it will require more nuclear power.
If you want to talk about what it will take to reach a political consensus, it will get hung up on nuclear power isssues an never do much for CO-2 reductions.
Those who demand CO-2 reductions and do not mention (or oppose) nuclear power either have not done their homework or are playing a political game of their own.
Albert makes a good point. Even if consensus can be reached on fundamental energy truths as Robert lists, there is usually wide discord about how to translate those into energy goals, and the methods and timeline to achieve those objectives. Unfortunately, energy policy (or lack of) is influenced/derailed by people who do not have the technical understanding of the energy production and distribution issues. These are the people who are not doing their homework or playing political games as Albert alludes to.