WASHINGTON: The controversial debate over energy independence is once again under the spotlight in the US.
According to a report in the Washington Post, the White House has declared this week “energy week.”
Energy Secretary Rick Perry — along with Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke, and Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency — penned an opinion piece in the Washington Times arguing that the administration is charting a course that will seemingly end what some characterize as the US’ “dependence” on foreign oil, and usher in a new era of American “dominance” in international energy markets. Part of this argument appears directed at the energy policies of the previous administration of Barack Obama.
The argument for energy independence is not new. Presidential candidates have long made it part of their campaign agendas and Donald Trump was no exception ahead of the election. However, energy analysts in the US and elsewhere have cast doubt about the feasibility of any nation achieving energy independence given the global nature of energy markets. They argue that oil is an internationally traded commodity and that no single nation can control its price or insulate itself from the geopolitical factors that invariably impact the price of oil.
Of course, energy policy is closely related to environmental policy and the Trump administration has already demonstrated that it is indeed adopting very different policies from Obama’s. It has already decided to withdraw from the Paris accord on the environment, to which the overwhelming majority of countries around the world have agreed. The accord requires signatories to pledge to take measures to reduce carbon emissions which are largely blamed for climate change and environmental degradation. This and other policies, including rolling back Obama’s Clean Power Plan, have faced intense scrutiny and a fair amount of criticism, not only from organizations focused on protecting the environment but also from some of the biggest energy companies around the world.
The framing of the Trump administration policy in terms of asserting US “dominance” in energy markets has also been the subject of debate. While energy analysts do not dispute that the revolution in shale energy technology has greatly strengthened the US position in energy markets, some caution that the unpredictability of oil prices makes projections for energy markets incredibly difficult. Others have also expressed doubts about the capacity of the US energy industry to generate “thousands” of jobs, as some Trump administration officials have claimed. Critics cite the Keystone XL pipeline project as one example where there could be fewer jobs created than than the administration estimated, and that these will be of a temporary nature, as opposed to permanent jobs.
According to a report in the Washington Post, the White House has declared this week “energy week.”
Energy Secretary Rick Perry — along with Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke, and Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency — penned an opinion piece in the Washington Times arguing that the administration is charting a course that will seemingly end what some characterize as the US’ “dependence” on foreign oil, and usher in a new era of American “dominance” in international energy markets. Part of this argument appears directed at the energy policies of the previous administration of Barack Obama.
The argument for energy independence is not new. Presidential candidates have long made it part of their campaign agendas and Donald Trump was no exception ahead of the election. However, energy analysts in the US and elsewhere have cast doubt about the feasibility of any nation achieving energy independence given the global nature of energy markets. They argue that oil is an internationally traded commodity and that no single nation can control its price or insulate itself from the geopolitical factors that invariably impact the price of oil.
Of course, energy policy is closely related to environmental policy and the Trump administration has already demonstrated that it is indeed adopting very different policies from Obama’s. It has already decided to withdraw from the Paris accord on the environment, to which the overwhelming majority of countries around the world have agreed. The accord requires signatories to pledge to take measures to reduce carbon emissions which are largely blamed for climate change and environmental degradation. This and other policies, including rolling back Obama’s Clean Power Plan, have faced intense scrutiny and a fair amount of criticism, not only from organizations focused on protecting the environment but also from some of the biggest energy companies around the world.
The framing of the Trump administration policy in terms of asserting US “dominance” in energy markets has also been the subject of debate. While energy analysts do not dispute that the revolution in shale energy technology has greatly strengthened the US position in energy markets, some caution that the unpredictability of oil prices makes projections for energy markets incredibly difficult. Others have also expressed doubts about the capacity of the US energy industry to generate “thousands” of jobs, as some Trump administration officials have claimed. Critics cite the Keystone XL pipeline project as one example where there could be fewer jobs created than than the administration estimated, and that these will be of a temporary nature, as opposed to permanent jobs.
