US energy policy may hurt its role as world leader
“Apres moi, le deluge” (after me, the flood) is attributed to King Louis XV of France. It may have earlier been uttered, with “nous” substituted for “moi,” by the king’s favorite, Madame de Pompadour. In either form, it segues nicely into my late evening ramblings. What will happen after I and my generation pass into the darkness, as generations before mine did, and as generations after mine will, in turn, also do?
I identify with the silent generation, falling after the so-called greatest generation and before the baby boomers. Next month, I “celebrate” my 89th birthday. I like to think of it as the start of my 90th year on the planet earth; that has a more momentous ring to it. My passing will be noted in an obituary read by a few people and soon forgotten.
I suspect that most people who live to an advanced age speculate as to what will happen after they are gone. Often, too, they believe that the world is “going to hell in a handbasket” (Google the expression for an interesting discussion). But, we should always view our memories of golden youth with deep suspicion. When I was born, we were in the depths of the Great Depression and Adolf Hitler had just been appointed chancellor of Germany. My early childhood awareness was of World War II. I don’t think that I’ll depart from a world more worrisome than the one into which I was first introduced. But, certainly, today’s world is rife with its own problems and uncertainties.
I shall speculate on only one of those problems and the uncertainties associated with it, viz, climate change. Since dispassionate and disinterested argument is always suspect in today’s world, let me immediately acknowledge that international petroleum economics and politics was once my primary academic research interest. I think that gives me some valuable insights, but you may also suspect some biases; so be it.
Climate change is real, but there can be legitimate discussion and dispute about climate change policies. President Joe Biden’s green agenda may be nobly motivated. I am sympathetic with many of its goals, worried about its inconsistencies and convinced that it will diminish the stature of the United States and promote the ascendency of China.
Climate change is a world problem and can only be effectively addressed by a coordinated world effort. Nothing the United States can do on its own will have any significant effect on climate change. That should be too obvious to need explicit mention. Unfortunately, its obviousness seems to be missed by many green advocates.
What the United States can do is increase oil and especially, natural gas production to replace coal in the generation of energy. This gas-for-coal substitution has already done much to reduce our carbon footprint. We should also take steps to advance the development and construction of nuclear power plants. Promoting fracking and nuclear require the easing or elimination of regulatory impediments that increase investment uncertainty and are designed not so much for safety as simply for delay. Encouraging increased foreign production of oil in, e.g., Saudi Arabia and Venezuela while discouraging domestic production is ill-advised and counterproductive; i.e., it increases worldwide carbon emissions.
U.S. policies are increasing the cost and reliability of domestic energy. And, as earlier noted, they are doing little for worldwide carbon reduction. That goal can only be achieved if other countries, and especially China and India, follow the same carbon reduction policies that we now advocate. But, both those countries are increasing their energy production through the increased use of coal. Any carbon reduction policies, with their higher domestic costs and decreased reliability, that Americans pursue are more than offset by the increased coal use in China and India. That increased coal use means lower cost energy generation for those countries. Lower costs promote more rapid economic growth and political influence. Higher costs, by obvious contrast, lead to slower economic growth.
It can be argued that today’s dominance of the United States was the result of 19th and 20th
century economic growth and efficiency. U.S. energy policy today, motivated by laudable green goals, but with higher costs, is yielding the relative advantage to China.
But, a dominant U.S. today does not make life any less pleasant in Switzerland. Perhaps a dominant mid-century China will not make life any less pleasant in a more green America. Or, is that too optimistic?
But, as with all good forecasters, I’ll be gone before the validity of my prediction is revealed.