Race for Arctic Energy Resources Shows Need for U.S. to Ratify Law of the Sea Treaty
As I have been researching and writing about Arctic energy development recently, there’s one important – and easy – policy prescription that often comes up: joining the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As I mentioned in my article, “Energy Development in the Arctic: Threats and Opportunities” the USGS estimates that the Arctic region has 22% of the world’s undiscovered energy resources – and 84% of those resources are expected to occur offshore (so 18.5% of the undiscovered resources are on or under the Arctic seabed).
Senator Lugar’s Loss is a Loss for U.S. Energy Security
A Moderate Willing to Work With Both Sides
I just wanted to take a quick moment to lament the loss of Senator Lugar to the Senate. He lost his Republican Primary election for the Indiana Senate seat last night by an astonishing 21 points. The issues of energy and environmental security, especially in how they affect America’s foreign policy, were central to his 36 years in the Senate. There were many other factors that helped bring him down — his age, the fact that he no longer lived in Indiana, and his votes on TARP and President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.
Senator Lugar played a unique role in American energy and environmental policy because his position has really marked the center of American politics on these issues. That means that he’s been willing to work with both sides to get things done, and it also means that his views have shifted as the country’s views have shifted.
When I worked in the Senate, I had the opportunity to work with his staff on the Foreign Relations Committee, and there were few people anywhere on the Hill who were more professional. They simply were interested in seeking the best solutions on important issues, regardless of whether that solution came from the right of the left. One of my proudest moments was working to introduce and pass legislation for a clean-energy bank — now operated through the World Bank — that helps to fund clean energy development around the world. This truly was bipartisan, introduced by Senators Lugar, Biden, Menendez, and Hagel (my boss at the time). I am afraid, however, that this election marks the end of such solution-oriented legislating for a long time.
CONTINUE»
National Security Implications of Climate Change Requires Serious Study
Earlier this week, the Washington Times wrote a particularly angry and irrational editorial arguing against the military planning for climate change. The proximate reason for their editorial was Secretary Panetta’s speech on May 2 at the Environmental Defense Fund in which he said “Climate Change has a Dramatic Impact on Our National Security.” ASP blogged about the speech last week.
Normally, I would not take the time to respond to the Washington Times editorial, as they are notorious for being at the far edge of the spectrum on this issue, and far away from any scientific mainstream, but some of the assertions are so scurrilous that they require a response. They simply cannot stand without being challenged.
They write that the national-security threat of climate change “is a fight America can’t afford.” However, as I have discussed before, a changing climate does pose real threats to America’s national security. Rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, increasingly dangerous weather disasters, and melting polar ice caps could destabilize countries, and the U.S. military must be prepared to react to the conflicts that could result from these changes. There is a robust academic argument about the precise linkages between climate and conflict, but that is not where this editorial goes.
Instead, there are some serious assertions in the editorial that must be responded to because they are so far from reality. I will precisely go through them.
Energy Development in the Arctic: Threats and Opportunities
One of the most contentious domestic political issues in the debate between energy development and environmental policy for over 20 years has been how to develop America’s energy resources in the Arctic. As Shell makes preparations to send offshore drilling rigs into the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas north of Alaska, I thought it would be important to walk through the history of energy exploration in Alaska.
- Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain, looking south toward the Brooks Range mountains.
Two weeks ago, I spoke as a part of a lecture series by the Massachusetts-based Manomet Center about energy development and ecosystems in the Arctic. Manomet is a conservation sciences organization that was founded to study migratory shorebirds; I was paired in the lecture with Stephen Brown, one of Manomet’s foremost experts on Alaskan shorebirds. The event was very interesting because it allowed a frank and open discussion of the threats and opportunities in the Arctic. The discussion below is adapted from my presentation.
CONTINUE»
The Failure of Republicans and Democrats on Gas Prices
Red Herrings: Speculation & Regulation
As I noted last week, I have been working on a short paper for ASP on gas prices. It was published earlier today with a title of “Cause & Effect: U.S. Gasoline Prices.” I also published an Op-Ed in The Hill “Running on empty: Failing to address high gas prices“ and was quoted in Reuters saying “The truth is, neither party is offering policies that will effectively address high gas prices.”
The report seeks to get beyond both party’s preferred narratives on gas prices and looks more deeply at the root causes of today’s high gasoline prices. Hopefully, it will puncture some of the assertions and rhetoric that both political parties use about gas prices, whether it’s shouting “speculation!” by those on the left or “too much regulation!” by those on the right.
Chevy Volt Sales Pick Up in March
Last week, in my post about the new Better Place electric vehicle company, I wrote that I was concerned that the electric vehicle “economic model cannot work in places like the U.S. where prices are lower, spaces are bigger, and there is not as much [government] support.”
I really do think that there’s not yet a good reason to buy an electric vehicle here in the U.S. yet. Though gas prices are approaching a nationwide average of $4.00 (it was $3.94 this week), I still don’t think that’s high enough to justify the extra cost. For instance, a Chevrolet Volt costs $40,000 (plus a $7,500 tax credit), while the Cruze, which is basically the same car with a 138 hp gasoline powered engine, costs only $17,000. Even at $4 per gallon, it’s hard to make those numbers match up. Across the Atlantic, though, where gas prices are higher and there are higher sales taxes on traditional cars, it can make more sense.
Why We Complain About High Gas Prices
Who is to Blame?
I’ve been working for the past week on a fact-sheet for ASP on gas prices; what is causing this spike, and why they’re going so high. I will post a link to it when we publish it, but suffice it to say that we’re not going to come down and say that President Obama is responsible for high gas prices. Although I believe that there are some good reasons to be exploring for oil and gas here at home (e.g. balance of trade, new construction jobs), we should not delude ourselves into thinking that’s going to actually lower prices. More to come when we release the report next week, so keep an eye on this space.
I want to take a minute, though, to write about a few conclusions I’ve drawn after diving into the sometimes heated and nasty rhetoric around gas prices. One big conclusion that I’ve come to about gasoline in the U.S. is that we simply use too much of it; much more than is necessary. I think that’s mostly a factor of the low pump prices that we had grown accustomed to over generations. Though prices have been high and very unstable since 2005 when Katrina shut down refining in the Gulf, we have really only begun to change our economy to the new world of high prices. I wrote before about how the U.S. energy market is poised for a “Fundamental Shift” as we produce more oil and use less. However, I am somewhat surprised that it continues to take this long.
CONTINUE»
A Word on the U.S. as a Petro-State
Steve LeVine has been running a series of articles over at his blog on Foreign Policy, The Oil and the Glory about whether becoming a petro-state would change America’s character. While Steve is skeptical that the U.S. can in the future account for most of its energy requirements, I do actually believe that we’re going in that direction (see: Is the U.S. on track to join OPEC and Why U.S. Energy Policy is Poised for a Fundamental Shift).
The numbers are pretty convincing to me: we’re using less energy, especially oil, and we’re producing much more. Eventually, those curves are bound to cross, not today, or even this year, but maybe this decade.
The Better Place Model for Electric Vehicles
Battery Cost and Range Anxiety
Last week, when I was in Denmark, I visited the Better Place showroom just outside of Copenhagen. Better Place is a new company founded in 2007 to provide customers with the opportunity to drive clean electric vehicles. Founder Shai Agassi identified that the combination of oil dependence and climate-inducing emissions were fatal flaws in our transportation system, and that the traditional auto companies could not solve these problems.
Better Place is the result of this project. It is an ambitious effort to not just make an electric car — companies like Chevrolet, Nissan, and Renault are already doing that around the world — but to interlink the electric vehicle into a new, emissions free transport and energy system. The concept is as follows: A customer walks into a showroom and purchases a car (today, only Renault Fluences are available, but more are coming). He then will sign a contract with Better Place for however many miles he drives per year, and Better Place will provide him with a battery and all the electricity he needs for that. Unlike cars such as the Chevrolet Volt or the Nissan Leaf, the initial purchase price of the car is less because the cost does not include the battery. The model is much like when you buy a mobile phone; you buy the phone from Apple or Nokia and then sign up for a service contract from AT&T or Verizon.
Why Germany is Saying Good-Bye to Nuclear Power
Nuclear Shut-Down Grounded In Recent German History
The German government surprised Europe by announcing the closure of its nuclear power program a year ago this week, immediately after the Fukushima disaster. Some have since reopened, but others never will. They all will be closed and permanently retired by 2022.
This seemed to many of us in the energy field like a rash decision, but it was not. In my conversations around Berlin this week, it has become clear that this was not a simple, snap decision in response to the Japanese tragedy. Anti-nuclear sentiment has a long history and broad support across society.
Rise of the Greens
That consensus against nuclear power has its roots in the Green Party. The Greens emerged from the rebellious 1968 generation. In the U.S. we think of a green party as solely an environmental movement; that’s a big part of the German green movement, but certainly not the only part. The early greens consciously rejected what they perceived as the ideals of both sides of the Iron Curtain that divided their country. They were both anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian.
Comments