Lack Of Cohesive Energy Policy Comes From Tunnel Vision

This week’s Courier Herald column:

On January 12^th, two days after the Legislature gaveled in for the session (and two days after the University of Georgia again won a National Championship), the Fox Theater was filled with state political leaders, lobbyists, members of the state’s chambers of commerce, and media to hear the priorities of elected officials heading into the new year.  That afternoon, a much smaller crowd gathered in a much smaller room adjacent to the capitol to hear UGA’s inaugural 2022 Energy Policy Outlook.

The comparison of the two events is somewhat unfair.  One held the combination of top leaders and the immediacy of action.  The other contained 90 minutes of useful information about our state and nation’s energy complex combined with upcoming threats and opportunities.  These are the kind of things you hope experts are working on somewhere, but most people never really want to understand the details.

This is, unfortunately, the reality of today’s intersection of politics and policy.  In an era where most news is delivered in a self-selected manner, ala carte, via click, immediate crises and shiny objects command public attention.  Smart people somewhere else are supposed to be dealing with the boring messy stuff.

That is, until the boring messy stuff becomes today’s crisis.  Then, collectively, we the people express that “someone should have done something.”

Much of the immediacy of the imminent energy problems are geopolitical, and thus must be handled by or in conjunction with Washington.  The state, of course, continues to play a major role via the Public Service commission with ensuring affordable and reliable electric power and natural gas delivery, as well as the logistics of ensuring the delivery methods of most forms of energy to consumers.

One of the central points in UGA’s presentation – presented by the School of Public and International Affairs Center for International Trade and Security – was a warning against tunnel vision.  That is, Energy Policy requires a balance of Energy Security, National Security, Climate Security, and Economic Security. 

Balance in energy policy is sorely lacking in any current political debate.  You have too many who want to have “cheap energy” as an exclusive goal, framing the debate solely in the realm of economic security.  The counterbalance is found with those who choose to frame the debate exclusively along the lines of climate security.

While the U.S. is happy to divide itself over talking points, China and Russia are using cohesive, targeted, long-term energy strategies to achieve their own objectives.  These rivals or adversaries, depending on your perspective, are using our divisions to their own advantage.

While China talks as good of a game on climate change as they do on human rights, their reality is that they are increasing the use of coal and other carbon based sources at an increasing rate.  China announced the construction of 43 new coal-fired power plants just last year, according to Time magazine. Meanwhile, through their Belt and Road initiative, China has moved to virtually monopolize many rare earth minerals that will be crucial toward the movement of electric cars and battery storage systems.

Even more pressing on the geopolitical front, and the one most likely to wake up U.S. consumers to this issue, is Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline, which supplies natural gas to Germany.  Germany, in its rush to eliminate the use of carbon-free nuclear energy and switch to renewables, has taken an interim step to rely heavily on natural gas for electric generation. 

Germany, as a NATO member and the EU’s largest economy, isn’t likely to be as cooperative in pushing back against Russia with respect to their incursions – minor or major – into Ukraine.  Russia has taken advantage of Germany’s tunnel vision for their own national strategic objectives.  They’ve boosted their own economic security by creating a huge export partner, and driven a wedge between the alliance that represents the largest military check on their power.

It’s easy to see the pitfalls of Germany’s tunnel vision as outsiders, but we also should be reminded that Russia colluded with Saudi Arabia two years ago to flood world markets with oil, a moved destined specifically to break backs of U.S. fracking and shale oil interests.  We tolerated their weaponization of energy because we really liked the cheap gas that resulted.

The light at the end of the US’s energy independent tunnel turned out to be a Russian train. Oil this week has passed $90 per barrel.  Someone should have done something, I guess.  But as has become custom, we were too busy shouting past each other to have paid attention.