hollywhitman's picture

    Thoughts on Why Energy Will Be a Huge Part of the 2016 Election

    Politics is no longer a civil discourse about two ways to take positive actions that will benefit our country. One of the areas that is up for debate is energy. Even though the changing climate is one of the most imminent dangers facing our country, it’s hardly gotten any coverage. Compared to the gun control, women’s rights, equality, immigration and health care topics, energy has taken a backseat. While those are important issues, none of them will matter if our world collapses.

    The Parties are Divided over Climate Change

    Republican: Trump flat-out rejects climate change as a legitimate issue. He disagrees with 97 percent of the world’s scientists and feels that attacks on U.S. soil hold precedence over the perceived effects of climate change.

    Both Rubio and Marco feel that climate change is a real issue, but question how much humans have affected it. By that same logic, they also question what we can do to stop it. If we aren’t causing it, then there’s really no reason to try and do anything differently.

    Kasich, on the other hand, agrees that climate change is real and that humans have played a direct role in it. He is the only Republican candidate that goes far enough to actually agree with scientists, but has so far been reluctant to say what he would do about it as president.

    Democrat: Both Sanders and Clinton have proposed fairly strong plans for the reduction of classic, nonrenewable energy and the promotion of other sustainable options. Both candidates support a strong stance in favor of sustainable energy.

    The U.N. Agreement Could Be at Risk

    When Obama attended the United Nation’s Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015, he pledged a 32 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.

    Republican: Republicans have already been stoically against this commitment, especially since many Republicans are from areas that are deeply reliant on fossil fuels for jobs. Fossil fuels account for about two-thirds of our energy generation, so it makes sense that there’s a lot of jobs that are reliant on it. Meanwhile, renewable energy, not including nuclear, only makes up about 13 percent.

    So far, all of the Republican candidates have agreed not to honor the Obama Administration pledge. They all say that the deal is either illegal or unnecessary, and that the only sure thing that will happen is job loss.

    Democrat: Again, both Sanders and Clinton support Obama’s pledge. Sander’s overall energy plan is more ambitious than Clinton’s, where he wants the United States to have homes, heating and transportation run entirely on renewable resources. Clinton’s plan is to have all American homes powered by clean energy within 10 years of her election. While that would require a great deal of progress, it does not take into account the transportation issue that Sander’s does.

    The Nation’s Green Progress Could Stall

    Republican: Since Republicans are so set on saving jobs and boosting the economy in areas that are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels, the nation faces a serious problem. The majority of Americans think that we should do whatever it takes to save the environment, even if it costs jobs, but that sounds different when it directly impacts your job in particular. While all the candidates on this side say they would support green technologies, they provide basically no support to the industry.

    Trump, on the other hand, has been blatantly against green technology. He has asked other countries not to put up wind turbines, and has presented no plan to promote sustainable energy.

    Democrat: Clinton has a progressive plan. She wants to install millions of solar panels, remove oil and gas subsidies, promote wind power and create jobs in the process.

    Sanders, however, actually goes above Clinton’s plan. He wants the nation to be on 100 percent sustainable energy. He wants to stop new oil and gas production, which would force our economy to move toward green energy.

    Renewable Energy Companies Could Face New Hurdles

    Republican: Cruz isn’t presenting too many hurdles to new technology. In fact, he’s actually calling for a cease fire of all government subsidies for energy, including those for gas and oil. This is actually good news from the Republican side, but he’s also against sustainable energy tax credits and setting a national goal to reduce carbon emissions.

    Kasich, on the other hand, supports wind and solar subsidies. However, he also thinks we need to look into all energy methods, including upping production of oil, gas and coal, despite their environmental effects.

    While Rubio appears to support green technologies, most of his programs are heavily in favor of old methods.

    Democrat: Sanders is very interested in the idea of using solar. He has stated several times that he strongly feels renewable energies, like solar, should be subsidized by the government. Part of this is because of his focus on the environment. The other aspect is because he does want to use solar to help promote business growth.

    Clinton is also in favor of sustainable energy, but instead of offering to subsidize the new market, she instead pledges to end subsidies for oil and gas. This is a very different idea than Sanders, and while it would help to even out the playing field, it would still prevent government from taking a firm stance in support for the fledgling industry.

    All in all, only one side is taking the energy crisis seriously. Let’s hope all the parties can get on board before it’s too late.

    Comments

    First, I'm really pleased to see a post like this.

    Second, photovoltaic is great in theory, but in practice it has become cheap because they moved manufacturing to countries with cheap labor and loose environmental regulations. 

     


    Hi Holly, was going to post this in news, but your energy post came up timely - the role fracking plays - http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/03/10/presidential_wannabes... (which ignores the political room its bought from the Mideast and Russia and China's south seas adventures).

    I'm pleased with the progress of renewables, but this has been a 40 year effort. Tossing a bunch of money in will not necessarily speed it up - certainly we're not going 100% renewable in 8 years. We can discuss smart grids and electric cars and improved home & auto batteries and contribution energy and even liquid salt reactors. 

    Over 10 years we spent almost $2 trillion on just over 500GW non-hydro renewable energy. This article notes it would take $130 trillion to meet global needs thru renewables (and then we'd be stuck with this generation's tech for a long time): http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/news/expectation-management-renewables

    So the good news is we're designing our way out of our energy mess. The sobering side is it takes some time and careful reflection and intelligent choices. (And not clear the entire eco damage before it happens). Plus there are other positive developments to lower our enrgy, land, water and pollution footprints. Hopefully the politicians can lead well or not get in the way too badly.

    Cheers


    I definitely agree. We're still a long way from any solid plans and actionable points but I'm hopeful that we're moving in the right direction.


    Just checked electric charging density for western Europe and its quite dense. Renewables installs are proceeding fast, and grid upgrades are the major focus in the EU. Wll be a bit slower elsewhere, but it's in action.


    Great post, Holly.  I'm a bit torn.  I guess I've never really believed that our politics has ever been, "a civil discourse about two ways to take positive actions that will benefit our country," and that it is instead a battle of competing interests.  So, when Sanders says he wants to stop oil and gas production in the U.S., I'm not sure I can agree at all.  A few reasons:

    First, gas has environmental benefits and the U.S. has a lot of gas. We should exploit that. Not saying it doesn't have drawbacks, just that it is better than oil in a lot of ways and is plentiful and untapped in North America.

    Prosperity makes energy efficiency more likely and possible and oil and gas E&P in America has been a big engine of economic growth since the financial crisis.  Look back to 2009-2014 and a huge amount of the good paying jobs created were hydraulic fracturing jobs. A lot of the other jobs created, in hotels and home healthcare, sucked in terms of wages while people were entering the fracking industry making 6 figures.

    Fracking also pushed the U.S. out of oil dependency, which caused Saudi Arabia to force OPEC to increase production to the point that the price of oil collapsed and this has been about the only stimulus that American consumers have had since the government shifted prematurely into austerity mode in 2011.  Shutting down U.S. E&P would allow OPEC to ratchet the price up again, basically a tax against any American with a car. It would have an immediate, contractionary effect on the economy.

    We definitely have to make a transition, but I'm not sure how to ameliorate the immediate sacrifices.

     


    The obvious solution, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is a very stiff and regularly increasing consumption tax on all fossil fuels - including natural gas - with the revenues rebated directly to the American people.


    That is a very good idea. Another idea would be to put the revenues into a sovereign wealth fund of some sort.


    Thanks Michael.  I do apologize for the arrogant tone I employed in my previous post here.  It was off-putting and unnecessary.


    If Sanders actually made the statement about stopping oil and gas production i might disagree with him also because oil and gas will be needed to build the renewable future if there is such a future available.

    Natural gas from whatever source is a replacement for coal not oil, you can't make plastic with it or pave roads with it. The environmental benefits of Gas over Coal are debatable and recent research shows little if any GW benefits due to the massive leakage of methane, a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 and then there is groundwater contamination and the occasional earthquake.

    Tight oil production (fracking) reduced US oil imports dramatically but the US still imports about 8 Million barrels of oil every day. OIl prices collapsed from a combination of increased supply, from US production and a slowing of world demand.  The Saudis only increased their production dramatically after the price collapse to maintain their market share and help shut down US tight oil production.

    Low gas prices have helped US consumers to save some money but it has done nothing to stimulate the stagnant economy where the now permanent neoliberal austerity means we have cheap gas and nowhere to go.


    Latest Comments