The outcome of the US presidential election may or may not be known on the night of 4 November when the polls were due to close.
The outcome of the US presidential election may or may not be known on the night of 4 November when the polls were due to close. Such has been the confusion and misinformation voiced over the integrity of the polling process with the nation’s leader President Trump acting as cheerleader. At the time of writing in mid October, Former Vice-President Joe Biden was being widely tipped to be winning the race to the White House, but so was Hillary Cinton ahead of Election Day in 2016 (accurately in the sense that she won the popular vote).
Regardless of the result, the presidential campaign was marked by a notable lack of attention to climate change and energy transition as an election issue. This was ironic given the devastating fires raging in California and a frightening hurricane season, both phenomena attributed by many to the changing climate. However, Republicans stuck to boasting about US oil independence thanks to the espousal of a deregulated, free market for energy. They continued to be dismissive of government investment in climate change mitigation, deeming this an over-reaction to unconvincing science and a threat to energy industry jobs.
Biden promised on day one of his presidency to return the US to the 2015 Paris international agreement on reduction of CO2 emissions (from which Trump first announced US withdrawal in 2017). He also proposed a nine-point Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice plan including a commitment to economy-wide net-zero emissions no later than 2050. While in stark contrast to Trump’s laissez faire approach, Biden conspicuously avoided endorsement of the full Green New Deal legislative proposal introduced by the progressive New York representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts senator Edward Markey. The radical programme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, also addressed economic inequality and racial injustice. On the floor of the US Senate, the proposal which had no legislative implications, was unanimously rejected by the Republican majority.
During the campaign the parties could be forgiven for sidelining climate change policies in order to confront more pressing issues for the American electorate. A poll by Pew Research at the end of July found 42% of registered voters indicating that climate change would be an important issue in their ballot decision with 26% stating it was somewhat important. Responders were more concerned with the economy (79%), health care (68%) and the Covid-19 crisis (62%).
In fact the US is probably not that different from most other Western-style democracies in not putting climate change or indeed more general environmental protection policy at the top of its agenda. For example, the performance of Green parties in Europe and elsewhere has been uneven and largely inconsequential, achieving most success in wealthier countries with relatively low levels of unemployment. Bottom line: the vast majority of people expresses concern but popular momentum for the decisive, even drastic, measures required by individual governments to meet the Paris Agreement goals have not yet materialized.
A straightforward explanation for this inertia is that there is still no sense of urgency in everyday life. From a political standpoint, a clear-cut environmental issue has still to be framed that compares with something as basic as raising/lowering taxes. This would certainly be true of this year’s electoral cycle in the US. Nonetheless the impact of US energy policies have significant international as well as domestic implications.
The key to understanding the dynamics involved lies in the role of US oil production. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that in November last year the US became a net petroleum exporter for the first time since records began in 1972. The country is already a net exporter of natural gas. It is also predicted soon to be the world’s largest exporter of liquid natural gas (LNG), the demand encouraged by countries wanting to break the stranglehold on natural gas of the so-called ‘Natural Gas Triad’ of Russia, Qatar and Iran that accounts for 60% of the world reserves.
According to a pre-Covid-19 estimate in 2018 by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the US oil and natural gas industry was supporting 10.3 million jobs and nearly 8% of the nation’s gross domestic product. Even allowing for the likely optimistic picture painted by the API, these are numbers that politicians will tamper with at their peril.
Ironically the increasing production of natural gas to power the US is one reason that the Trump administration has had a get out of jail free card on CO2 emissions. According to preliminary EIA data published in April, 32% of US primary energy consumption came from natural gas sustaining a pattern of continuous annual growth. Market forces, i.e., the low cost of natural gas and the switch from more costly coal, have driven this trend. But it helped Trump during the campaign to overlook the US as the second largest emitter of CO2, second only to China. Instead, he could claim the US had reduced its emissions by more than any other country, true in terms of quantity reduced but not by percentage. For example, the US 2.9% between 2018 and 2019 was outshone by Germany (8%) and Japan (4.3%).
Given the emissions record, the Democrats were put on the defensive when it came to the emotive topic of fracking. In the public arena the word has become synonymous with environmentally unfriendly, even though most people would be hard pushed to explain what the process involves. The Republicans were able to taunt their rivals by claiming untruthfully that the Green New Deal called for a ban on fracking causing untold damage to the shale oil and gas business, loss of jobs and a threat to energy independence.
In fact the Deal made no mention of fracking. But Biden was forced to make clear that the Democratic programme did not include a ban. That couldn’t help sounding like an endorsement of the status quo.
Biden’s nine-point energy plan in summary, costed at around $1.7 trillion, comprised: 1) Reversing the Trump administration easing of some emission standards (oil and gas industry methane limits) and imposing new restrictions; 2) Legislating to advance the US to economy-wide net zero emission no later than 2050; 3) Rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement and supporting its objectives; 4) Spending of $400 billion over 10 years for clean energy and innovation; 5) Reducing by 50% the carbon footprint of US building stock by 2035; 6) Addressing the disproportionate impact of climate change and air pollution on ‘communities of colour, tribal lands and low-income communities’; 7) Holding polluters accountable; 8) Creating 10 million well-paid, middle-class, union jobs; and 9) Fulfilling ‘our obligation to the communities and workers that have risked their lives to produce fossil fuels that made it possible for America to win world wars and become an industrial power’.
Clear daylight was obvious between the two parties during the election if only because the Republicans offered no plan. A second Trump term would presumably continue the roll back of restrictions put upon the oil industry during the Obama era and pursue an aggressive licensing strategy (but not off Trump’s newfound homeland of Florida). Less clear is whether there would be the appetite to prop up shale operations. These have been showing signs of frailty and the need for consolidation. No one is talking about a collapse, but some big bets on the business have not paid off and Wall Street is now shunning further investment.
Neither party in government looks likely to bring about a major change in domestic energy policy at the Federal level that the free market would not accomplish. For instance, investment in renewables needs little encouragement because it is seen as profitable. Even major oil companies are showing more enthusiasm. Indeed, forecasts that renewals will increase their current contribution from 11% to at least 30% of US primary energy consumption by 2050 may well be conservative.
On the international front, the gradual weaning over the last decade of US dependence on crude oil imports from the Middle East emboldened the Trump administration in some of its foreign policy initiatives. It could risk blow back from the Arab world in relation to his unqualified support for the Israeli government of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, symbolized by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. The recent ‘Abraham Accords’ brokered by the US involving declarations of peace between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain emphasized the change possible, although critics decried the absence of any progress in resolving the Palestinian issue. More recently even Saudi Arabia has been hinting that it may contemplate normalizing relations with Israel.
The same dynamic has been in play when the US put pressure on Iran. Withdrawing from the nuclear agreement plus assassinating Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani caused far fewer repercussions than might have been expected.
None of this is so surprising because recent US administrations have all been seeking to reduce their interest in the fractious Middle East. Getting troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq has been a priority. One reason is ugly but simple. The need to protect potential sources of imported crude from the region is no longer relevant. This is thanks to the dramatic improvement in US domestic oil production. The same factor has also put the US in an extraordinary position of power in the determination of oil price, probably sickening President Putin in the process.
One can speculate a Biden administration focusing on further efforts to bring about a solution to the Israel-Palestine situation and trying for dialogue with Iran. But there will be no turning back from the diminishing presence of the US in the Middle East, such is the real politik of the oil business as long as it is a crucial cog in international diplomacy.
‘A presidential campaign marked by notable lack of attention to climate change and energy transition.’
‘Clear daylight was obvious between the two parties during the election.’
