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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »