Yesterday President Obama signed two important energy-related Executive Orders (EOs) as he declared a national goal of ending dependence on foreign oil and promised new U.S. leadership in the fight against global warming. With new Secretary of Transportation LaHood and new EPA Administrator Jackson looking on, he ordered a series of steps aimed at making American cars more fuel efficient and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
These and forthcoming EOs and other Administration actions will no doubt have an impact on the way energy is used in the US. Obama has promised that "It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."
But his actions will have impacts in many other parts of the world. For example, the oil industry in Alberta, Canada is wondering whether the shift in focus will mean less oil imports from Canada to the US. Currently, Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the U.S.--providing 17% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas demand. The change in US policy is making some companies think that they should emphasize that they are "energy" companies and not just oil/gas companies.
The US change in focus will also impact the balance of power in the world, an issue that hasn't been fully examined in the public media yet. The intention, of course, is to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other political hot spots around the world. All one has to do to see the impact of this is to look at the increased political power gained by Iran, Russia and others when oil prices soared, then the rapid decrease when prices dropped again. True, other factors including the Iraq war and the global economic crisis also affect this trend, but there is no question that reduced demand from the US will change the political dynamics of many regions. But countering that is the rise in energy demand from China and India, who will likely soak up any reduction in US demand. That is why the US energy policy must take into consideration international interconnections, and why the US must become a global leader in ushering in a new era of sustainable energy policy worldwide.
What other ramifications can we anticipate from the seemingly new direction in US energy policy?
Cross-posted at The Dake Page
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 60
Look how gas (not petrol) prices shot up in Europe because of the stranglehold on gas supplies by Russia. Our gas bills are due to come down by 10 per cent by March, but as they had risen by 70 per cent since last Autumn....
There are already many alternative energy actions being taken in the US funded through the Farm Bill and Energy Bill. For example, Georgia recently received funding (a USDA loan) through the 2008 Farm Bill to create a second-generation cellulosic ethanol plant. When fully operational in 2010, it will be capable of producing 20 million gallons of ethanol per year from wood chips. The Department of Energy also announced open solicitation for funding last year and they are hoping to help fund nearly 40 wind energy projects. These might seem like "baby steps" but they are very encouraging steps!
It will be exciting to see even more alternative energy sources developed!
I'm hopeful that President Obama's energy plan will include incentives for Americans to switch to greener energy alternatives.. for their cars, homes and businesses.
It's funny, when I moved here about 9 months ago I decided not to have a car or a television. And I haven't missed either. Makes me rethink what my lifestyle will be when I eventually return to DC.
I've heard Obama talk about everything from replacing the national grid to developing new energy technologies. I hope that we can at least begin to head in the right direction.
The more we learn about different energy alternatives and begin incorporating them into our lifestyles, the more competition the industry will generate. That can only lead to bringing the cost into the reach of many Americans.
Some of those alternative sources for fuel use more energy to produce that is gained. Ethonal is one. Industrial Hemp would be much better and cheaper to produce that fuel. There are a lot of non food sources that I hope get explored and the most effective, cheapest and octane compatable to gasoline is developed into a viable industry.
While it is true that alternative souces of energy will create jobs is is also true that it will eliminate jobs in the oil industry. The PC created jobs but at the same time eliminated a lot of keypunch operater's jobs.
I think Mr. O needs to be more familiar with exactly what is produced from a barrel of oil.
I lived in Germany for many years and learned very early on to make simple changes due to their recycling laws.
For instance... In Germany, you bring you own market baskets and bags to the store. If you don't you BUY every plastic/paper bag you need to bag your groceries. I'll admit, their policy was "environmentally" driven and my choice to comply was originally "economically" driven... but it worked! I changed and it was for the better.
I don't think the majority of America would be too excited about an action such as this. We are so convenience-driven.... it's a hard cycle to break!
In America, image is huge!! It helps that Hollywood is on the green-wagon, that cable TV now has a green-channel, etc., but it will take TIME to change the way Americans think, and then TIME to change the way they behave! It's also going to take economic-encouragement!
It's a matter of thinking big or thinking small (or not thinking).
Whilst I applaud the new systems, they are cumbersome to operate and tricky to navigate. Our household waste is collected fortnightly nowadays.
There has been a huge upsurge in the rat population... I wonder why? :)
It would be nice if we continue to buy oil from Canada while phasing out the more "unstable" countries, as we lower our dependence on foreign oil. Canada also has plenty of open land that could be utilized for wind power and some solar power, as well, and it would be very easy to string some power lines over to us.
If India and China want to continue to pollute themselves with oil based energy, it's up to them. Beijing already has enough smog, so if they are not getting the message, it's their fault.
Unfortunately, it's also the problem of the west coast of the US and Canada, since the westerlies move their smog here. Their use also impacts the global troposhere, not just the part over their countries. And their increased demand for oil not only puts pressure on prices but also helps strengthen those unstable countries that now control most of the source. Which has national security implications. There is so much that is intertwined now, which is why our policies impact the world.
Just a little spin on world consumption. The USA has 6% of the world population and consumes 40% of the worlds resources. Live simply, so others can simply live.
The game plan is changing. I think Barry sorry Barack is aware of the big picture. We dont have to kill people for the devil's gold " Oil ". Its cheaper not wage war against these countries for control of the oil revenue.
Those days are over and its run its coarse. Obama is mopping up. Ask yourself why is America fighting two wars, in these hell holes. Do you really think its because they care for these people. Its all about control. Wait till the water charges really kick in, your tap will be next the bowser. World war three will be fought over water. Did you know we can control the weather patterns? We are certainly living in interesting times.
Energy independence is a shell game played by both parties. Reducing foreign energy dependence is possible and desirable but not with arbitrary directives like stopping offshore oil exploration and increasing ethanol mandates. Ethanol is more polluting and far more expensive than fossil fuels plus it is casing all corn based foods to increase in price.
If we continue to jump on anything that seems to work without enough research (like the ethanol mess) all we are doing is hurting consumers and businesses at a particularly bad time. Government is too dull an instrument to keep trying to finesse such a problem.
I agree that ethanol - at least from corn and even sugar cane crops (in Brasil) - was a bad idea that got worse with the usual non-thinking way of pork barreling funding. And I'm hopefully we've learned our lesson on that. But I disagree that government is too dull an instrument, and suggest that the old way of thinking was too dull an intellect. We have a chance to think differently. So now is the time for us all to stop whining, stop saying it can't be done, and find ways to do it.
Do I doubt that he will manage to craft a policy that is completely free of pork-based calculations? Sure, I doubt that he will achieve that. But Bush never even tried. The only nod he gave to global warming was his push for corn ethanol, but that really was not science based, it was all an effort to get votes in Iowa for Republicans. It ,sure, but that is what it was all about. It never was about climate change or renewable energy at all with Bush, it was just a dumbed down effort to ingratiate himself with Joe the Plumber, who obviously never understood the science at all because he never wanted to.
I'm also wondering why you think the free market works so well, at least with respect to Detroit. The free market was why Detroit didn't adapt - it thought it as an industry was insurmountable. It thought it could simply rake in the profits and not have to worry about competition. But the free market requires continuing innovation. Detroit essentially took a nap in the middle of the race and wonders why the other competitors passed it by.
Now if you want to participate in an intelligent discussion of why Detroit (i.e., the Big 3) fell behind, including the impact of labor unions and the salaries/stock options of its CEOs , and even the impacts of tariffs, cheaper labor conditions, and state subsidies in other countries, then feel free to offer some useful information to that discussion. But simply attempting to demean others frankly reflects more on yourself then it does on them.
Then Japan decided to start shipping cars here. They could make them cheaper, so even with shipping and tariff costs added they were still cheaper. And after a few years of them being of crappy quality they realized they could make a killing if they upped the quality level. Now the Big 3 are Toyota, Honda, and Daimler (which now owns Chrysler). Sure Ford and GM are still big, but they are struggling and needed a handout like everyone else seems to these days. And that has absolutely nothing to do with CAFE and emissions standards, since the Japanese (and German and Swedish and Korean) cars all have to meet the same CAFE and emissions standards. In fact, they generally exceed them easily while the US companies struggle to balance Humvees with crappy tiny cars to get an average.
Bottom line, without "government assistance" (the current bailout but also tax breaks, tariffs, transportation costs, etc.) the big 3 would have gone out of business long ago. There are lots of reasons for it, and if they address those reasons they might figure out a way to be competitive again. But "government sticking its nose under the tent" is the only thing keeping the companies afloat right now (you can add in the government has taken over the pensions so retirees don't get screwed by poor management). In short, you have it completely backwards.
Real innovation takes incentive. The free market isn't providing it. In fact, it generally inhibits it.
It's the government that keeps us safe, remember. No one seemed to worry that the Bush government was spending a trillion dollars on Iraq and everything else it was doing. No one screamed "get government off our backs" then. It's the government that keeps your neighbor from building a hazardous waste site up against your pool fence. It's the government that sends the police when you've been robbed, the firemen when your house is on fire, and the ambulance when you have a heart attack. It's the government that builds the roads and bridges you use to get to and from work. It's the government that protects natural wonders like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone so you can take a vacation. etc, etc, etc
Actually, people were dying in the streets Charles.
"As to roads and defense, that is the government's job, at least that is Constitutional and to emergency services, that is the place for local and state governments. No sale."
I'm not trying to sell you anything Charles. But I'm glad that most people have a more comprehensive understanding of the role of governments (local, state, and federal). I'm not saying they do it efficiently, but they do it because we the people ask them to do it and there is a need to do it. Denying the value while enjoying the benefits is disingenuous.
How about chlorofluorocarbons, which were gradually destroying our ozone layer in the upper atmosphere until 1986 when an international treaty began the process of phasing them out of production. If not for that treaty, thousands more americans would be dead by now from melanoma and other skin cancers caused by ultraviolet light damage.
There have been many instances of successful government efforts to reduce pollutants, and those efforts have saved countless lives. What comes out of your car is invisible, but it is still pollution, including the CO2.