For all the progress in energy technologies, the world still relies heavily on old-school energy sources like coal and oil. Can the nonstop skirmishing over energy supplies ever cease? In advance of “Is Energy Security Possible?”, a Zócalo event featuring author Daniel Yergin, several prominent voices weighed in on the question of what energy security looks like and how we achieve it.
Energy security? Fiddlesticks.
Among the most fashionable preoccupations in foreign policy circles is “energy security.” Although it is unclear what exactly energy security means, foreign policy elites have long been concerned about reliance on foreign energy.
That’s unfortunate, because a nation that is self-sufficient in energy is no more “secure” than one that relies on imports for all its energy needs. Given the global nature of oil markets and the increasing globalization of natural gas markets, willingness to pay market prices will secure all the energy a nation could possibly wish for during peacetime.
Selective embargoes by producer nations on some consuming nations are unenforceable unless (i) all other nations on Earth refuse to ship oil to the embargoed state, or (ii) a naval blockade were to prevent oil shipments into the ports of the embargoed state. That’s because, once oil leaves the territory of a producer, market agents dictate where the oil goes, not agents of the producer, and, as noted, anyone willing to pay the prevailing world crude oil price can have all he wants.
Nor should we worry that hostile foreign producers might curtail oil production to punish America with higher prices. The historical record strongly indicates that oil-producing states, regardless of their feelings toward the industrialized West, are rational economic actors. After a detailed survey of the world oil market since the rise of OPEC, oil economist M.A. Adelman concluded, “We look in vain for an example of a government that deliberately avoids a higher income. The self-serving declaration of an interested party is not evidence.” Prof. Philip Auerswald of George Mason University agreed, stating, “For the past quarter century, the oil output decisions of Islamic Iran have been no more menacing or unpredictable than Canada’s or Norway’s.”
Finally, a supply disruption anywhere in the world will increase the price of crude everywhere in the world, so “secure” domestic sources of crude do not protect us from the economic impacts of war, terrorism, or civil unrest in foreign producer states.
Jerry Taylor is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a member of the International Association for Energy Economics.
—————————————————
Energy security is elusive–but let’s at least use less oil.
Energy security is an elusive goal, one we’ve been chasing for 40 years. One of the things Dan Yergin wisely says is that our energy security depends in large part on a diversity of supply sources, so that only a limited amount hinges on any one country. This approach must be pursued by the rest of the world, too, because I’m not sure that the United States–or any other country, including China–can be secure in its energy supplies when the rest of the world isn’t.
This is, as we say over and over, a global market. Take the Libyan crisis. The United States imported relatively little Libyan oil, but it ended up joining the NATO bombing campaign. This was because the outcome mattered to European nations, which depend much more on Libyan oil. Still, the diversity of supply sources did make it easier to deal with the loss of Libyan oil. Thanks to an accident of geology (or perhaps some divine plan), most of the world’s oil reserves rest in the Persian Gulf, and that will be a security issue as long as we rely heavily on oil. Figuring out how to use that oil more efficiently and sparingly should also be an essential part of our national security strategy.
Steven Mufson is a staff writer at The Washington Post.
—————————————————
Energy security means clean domestic power sources.
In recent years we’ve all come to realize that America is no longer on solid ground. The economic downturn threatens our livelihoods and our children’s future. International conflicts put our armed forces in harm’s way. Natural disasters such as flooding and fires are devastating unsuspecting communities across the nation. Our feeling of security has been pulled right out from underneath us.
But in the midst of this chaos, there’s a glimmer of hope–an opportunity to chart a new course for our future that will make us more safe, rebuild our economy, keep people employed and healthy, and unify the nation once again. The solution lies with our energy system–changing it from dirty to clean, antiquated to innovative, unstable to secure.
For over 100 years, we’ve relied on oil and coal to light our homes, move us around, and improve our standard of living. But 19th-century technologies are no longer improving our 21st-century quality of life. In fact, they’re holding us back. Relying on dirty fossil fuels keeps us tethered to unstable regimes, threatens our families’ health with pollution, and leads to extreme weather events caused by climate change.
It’s time to usher in a new energy era. America didn’t become great by relying on yesterday’s answers. We’ve grown by embracing innovation and making bold changes. After he invented the Model T, William Ford famously said, “If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.”
All across America, workers are already building the next generation of energy technologies. More than 2.7 million people work in the clean economy right now. That’s more than the entire fossil fuel industry, according to the Brookings Institution. The clean energy industry, meanwhile, grew nearly twice as fast as the overall economy between 2003 and 2010. Nearly 90,000 Americans make their living building wind turbines, and wind power provides 3 percent of our nation’s electricity and 8 percent in Texas. More than 150,000 Americans currently have jobs assembling clean cars–hybrids, electric cars, and other advanced vehicles save drivers money at the gas pump and cut down on dangerous pollution.
Now we need Washington to get onboard. It’s time for our leaders push aside deep-pocketed special interests and embrace the clean energy system that’s already sprouting up in pockets across the country. In doing so, they will sow the seeds of economic prosperity, livable communities, and energy security for ourselves, our children, and our fellow Americans.
Frances Beinecke is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council and author of Clean Energy Common Sense.
—————————————————
The meaning of energy security depends on who you are.
Although there is a vast literature and much discussion about what constitutes “energy security,” there is no consensus on a definition. The problem is that the concept of energy security depends on where in society one sits. At the most basic level, energy security means having access to the requisite volumes of energy at affordable prices. There is also an implicit assumption that access to the required energy should be impervious to disruptions–that alternative supplies should be readily available at affordable prices and sufficient with respect to both available volume and time required for distribution.
From the perspective of a government concerned with its macro-economy and the management of its strategic interests, energy security implies energy policies and standby measures that can be implemented in the event of a supply disruption–and at a cost that its citizens consider reasonable. Such measures include energy supply diversification and a certain volume of energy stock. Governments must also be able to manage the macroeconomic effects of a major supply disruption, including price shocks, inflation, and loss of jobs in energy-intensive industries.
From the vantage point of a private citizen, the definition of energy security is more nuanced but still hinges on access to readily available resources in sufficient volume at affordable prices. Instead of being applicable to the macro-economy, however, energy security is now applied to individuals and small enterprises, such as farmers, businesses, and local industry.
Energy security in urban areas has yet another meaning. Rapid urbanization and rising middle-class incomes around the world have led to explosive growth in electricity demand. Thus, to the growing urban communities, energy security simply means keeping the lights on. For many developing countries, brownouts and blackouts have become commonplace, sometimes fomenting political–at times violent–demonstrations.
Finally, for the poorest populations, energy security has profound implications on daily lives. In particular, a basic supply of commercial energy sources and electricity can empower women and girls, ensure better education for children, and improve health and healthcare services. Energy security is, in this sense, about guaranteeing access.
Charles K. Ebinger is a Senior Fellow and director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. He is the author of Energy and Security in South Asia: Cooperation or Conflict? and the co-editor of Business and Nonproliferation: Industry’s Role in Safeguarding a Nuclear Renaissance.
—————————————————
Energy security means both adequate supply and adequate environmental stewardship.
Energy development is booming in the West. In the next 20 years, the region will see 100,000 new wells and 100,000 new wind turbines. This is expected to affect nearly 12 million acres. That’s more land area than several entire states back East.
Yes, these new sources of energy can reduce dependence on foreign supplies, which is one aspect of energy security. But the impact on water quality, endangered species, ranches, farms, hunting, and fishing could be big. Really big.
So what about the other aspect of energy security–making energy production beneficial for our lands, waterways, and wildlife?
At EDF, we think one of the best ways to reduce the footprint of energy sprawl is to offset it with increased habitat conservation and restoration, paid for as a part of a fair and efficient permitting and environmental review process.
Here’s an example of how offsets can work. When golden-cheeked warblers were found to be threatened by the expansion of the Fort Hood Army Base near Killeen, Texas, we developed a program that allowed the base to increase its operations by purchasing credits from nearby landowners. These landowners created new habitat to make up for any damage from base operations. The project worked so well that the known population of warblers increased from 5,000 to 9,000 birds, and now the program is expanding from six to 34 counties, and private companies like energy companies and others are poised to buy credits to offset damage from new development projects.
Wouldn’t it be great if people could come together around solutions like this on a scale large enough to mitigate land and water impacts from energy development in the West? Success means energy companies would benefit from regulatory certainty and lower compliance costs, and we’d all benefit from keeping our vital natural capital–like our water and air–intact.
Now that’s real energy security.
David Festa is vice president of West Coast operations and the national Land, Water and Wildlife Program at Environmental Defense Fund.
*Photo courtesy of ali_pk.