Published on Portside (https://portside.org)
Drowning
the World in Oil - Trump's Carbon-Obsessed Energy Policy and the Planetary
Nightmare to Come
Michael T. Klare
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Tom Dispatch
Scroll
through Donald Trump's campaign promises or listen to his speeches and you
could easily conclude that his energy policy [1] consists of
little more than a wish list drawn up by the major fossil fuel companies: lift
environmental restrictions on oil and natural gas extraction, build the
Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, open more federal lands to drilling,
withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, kill Obama's Clean Power Plan,
revive the coal mining industry, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. In
fact, many of his proposals have simply been lifted [2] straight from
the talking points of top energy industry officials and their lavishly financed
allies in Congress.
If,
however, you take a closer look at this morass of pro-carbon proposals, an
obvious, if as yet unnoted, contradiction quickly becomes apparent. Were all
Trump’s policies to be enacted -- and the appointment [3] of
the climate-change denier and industry-friendly attorney general of Oklahoma,
Scott Pruitt, to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests the
attempt will be made -- not all segments of the energy industry will
flourish. Instead, many fossil fuel companies will be annihilated, thanks
to the rock-bottom fuel prices produced by a colossal oversupply of oil, coal,
and natural gas.
Indeed,
stop thinking of Trump’s energy policy as primarily aimed at helping the fossil
fuel companies (although some will surely benefit [4]).
Think of it instead as a nostalgic compulsion aimed at restoring a
long-vanished America in which coal plants, steel mills, and gas-guzzling automobiles
were the designated indicators of progress, while concern over
pollution -- let alone climate change -- was yet to be an issue.
If you want
confirmation that such a devastating version of nostalgia makes up the heart
and soul of Trump’s energy agenda, don’t focus on his specific proposals or any
particular combination of them. Look instead at his choice of ExxonMobil
CEO Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state and former Governor Rick Perry from
oil-soaked Texas as his secretary of energy, not to mention the
carbon-embracing fervor that ran through his campaign statements and
positions. According to [5] his
election campaign website, his top priority will be to “unleash America’s $50
trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of
years in clean coal reserves.” In doing so, it affirmed, Trump would
“open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands, eliminate [the] moratorium
on coal leasing, and open shale energy deposits.” In the process, any
rule or regulation that stands in the way of exploiting these reserves will be
obliterated.
If all of
Trump’s proposals are enacted, U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will soar,
wiping out the declines [6] of
recent years and significantly increasing the pace of global warming.
Given that other major GHG emitters, especially India and China, will
feel less obliged [7] to
abide by their Paris commitments if the U.S. heads down that path, it’s almost
certain that atmospheric warming will soar beyond the 2 degree Celsius rise
over pre-industrial levels that scientists consider the maximum the planet can
absorb without suffering catastrophic repercussions. And if, as promised,
Trump also repeals a whole raft of environmental regulations and
essentially dismantles [8] the
Environmental Protection Agency, much of the progress made over recent years in
improving our air and water quality will simply be wiped away, and the skies
over our cities and suburbs will once again turn gray with smog and toxic
pollutants of all sorts.
Eliminating
All Constraints on Carbon Extraction
To fully
appreciate the dark, essentially delusional nature of Trump’s energy nostalgia,
let’s start by reviewing his proposals. Aside from assorted tweets and
one-liners, two speeches before energy groups represent the most elaborate
expression of his views: the first [9] was
given on May 26th at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck,
North Dakota, to groups largely focused on extracting oil from shale through
hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the Bakken shale oil formation; the second [10] on
September 22nd addressed the Marcellus Shale Coalition in Pittsburgh, a group
of Pennsylvania gas frackers.
At both
events, Trump’s comments were designed to curry favor with this segment of the
industry by promising the repeal of any regulations that stood in the way of
accelerated drilling. But that was just a start for the
then-candidate. He went on to lay out an “America-first energy plan [11]” designed
to eliminate virtually every impediment to the exploitation of oil, gas, and
coal anywhere in the country or in its surrounding waters, ensuring America’s
abiding status as the world’s leading producer of fossil fuels.
Much of
this, Trump promised in Bismarck, would be set in motion in the first 100 days
of his presidency. Among other steps, he pledged [11] to:
* Cancel
America's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of
U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs
* Lift any
existing moratoriums on energy production in federal areas
* Ask
TransCanada to renew its permit application to build the Keystone Pipeline
* Revoke
policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies
* Save the
coal industry
The
specifics of how all this might happen were not provided either by the
candidate or, later, by his transition team. Nevertheless, the main
thrust of his approach couldn’t be clearer: abolish all regulations and
presidential directives that stand in the way of unrestrained fossil fuel
extraction, including commitments made by President Obama in December 2015
under the Paris Climate Agreement. These would include, in particular,
the EPA’s Clean Power Plan [12], with its
promise to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired
plants, along with mandated improvements in automotive fuel efficiency standards, requiring [13] major
manufacturers to achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon in all new cars by
2025. As these constitute the heart [14] of
America’s “intended nationally determined contributions” to the 2015 accord,
they will undoubtedly be early targets for a Trump presidency and will
represent a functional withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, even if an actual
withdrawal isn’t instantly possible.
Just how
quickly Trump will move on such promises, and with what degree of success,
cannot be foreseen. However, because so many of the measures adopted by
the Obama administration to address climate change were enacted as presidential
directives or rules promulgated by the EPA -- a strategy adopted to circumvent
opposition from climate skeptics in the Republican-controlled House and Senate
-- Trump will be in a position to impose a number of his own priorities simply
by issuing [1] new
executive orders nullifying Obama’s. Some of his goals will, however, be
far harder to achieve. In particular, it will prove difficult indeed to
“save” the coal industry if America’s electrical utilities retain their preference [15] for
cheap natural gas.
"Energy security" has led to increased US military
involvement around the world, says Michael T. Klare.
Image credit: Oil security via Shutterstock // Truthout
Ignoring
Market Realities
This last
point speaks to a major contradiction in the Trump energy plan. Seeking to
boost the extraction of every carbon-based energy source inevitably
spells doom [16] for
segments of the industry incapable of competing in the low-price environment of
a supply-dominated Trumpian energy marketplace.
Take the
competition between coal and natural gas in powering America’s electrical
plants. As a result of the widespread deployment of fracking technology
in the nation’s prolific shale fields, the U.S. gas output has skyrocketed in
recent years, jumping [17] from
18.1 trillion cubic feet in 2005 to 27.1 trillion in 2015. With so much
additional gas on the market, prices have naturally declined [18] -- a
boon for the electrical utility companies, which have converted [19] many
of their plants from coal to gas-combustion in order to benefit from the low
prices. More than anything else, this is responsible for the decline of
coal use, with total consumption dropping by 10% [20] in 2015 alone.
In his
speech to the Marcellus Coalition, Trump promised to facilitate the expanded
output of both fuels. In particular, he pledged to eliminate federal
regulations that, he claimed [21], “remain a
major restriction to shale production.” (Presumably, this was a reference to
Obama administration measures aimed at [22] reducing
the excessive leakage of methane, a major greenhouse gas, from fracking operations
on federal lands.) At the same time, he vowed to “end the war on coal and the
war on miners.”
As Trump
imagines the situation, that “war on coal” is a White House-orchestrated drive
to suppress its production and consumption through excessive regulation,
especially the Clean Power Plan. But while that plan, if ever fully put
into operation, would result in the accelerated decommissioning of existing
coal plants, the real war against coal is being conducted by the very frackers
Trump seeks to unleash. By encouraging the unrestrained production of
natural gas, he will ensure continued low gas prices and so a depressed market
for coal.
A similar
contradiction lies at the heart of Trump’s approach to oil: rather than seeking
to bolster core segments of the industry, he favors a supersaturated market
approach that will end up hurting many domestic producers. Right now, in
fact, the single biggest impediment to oil company growth and profitability is
the low price environment [23] brought
on by a global glut of crude -- itself largely a consequence of the explosion
of shale oil production in the United States. With more petroleum
entering the market all the time and insufficient world demand to soak it up,
prices have remained at depressed levels for more than two years, severely
affecting fracking operations as well. Many U.S. frackers, including some
in the Bakken formation, have found themselves forced to suspend operations
or declare bankruptcy [24] because
each new barrel of fracked oil costs more to produce than it can be sold for.
Trump’s
approach to this predicament -- pump out as much oil as possible here and in
Canada -- is potentially disastrous, even in energy industry terms. He
has, for instance, threatened to open [11] up
yet more federal lands, onshore and off, for yet more oil drilling, including
presumably areas previously protected on environmental grounds like the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and the seabeds off the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts. In addition, the construction of pipelines like the embattled [25] one
in North Dakota and other infrastructure needed to bring these added resources
to market will clearly be approved and facilitated.
In theory,
this drown-us-in-oil approach should help achieve a much-trumpeted energy
“independence” for the United States, but under the circumstances, it will
surely prove a calamity of the first order. And such a fantasy version of
a future energy market will only grow yet more tumultuous thanks to Trump’s
urge to help ensure the survival of that particularly carbon-dirty form of oil
production, Canada’s tar sands industry [26].
Not
surprisingly, that industry, too, is under enormous pressure [27] from
low oil prices, as tar sands are far more costly to produce than conventional
oil. At the moment, adequate pipeline capacity is also lacking for the
delivery of their thick, carbon-heavy crude to refineries on the American Gulf
Coast where they can be processed into gasoline and other commercial
products. So here’s yet one more Trumpian irony to come: by favoring [28] construction
of the Keystone XL pipeline, Trump would throw yet another monkey wrench into
his own planning. Sending such a life preserver to the Canadian industry
-- allowing it to better compete with American crude -- would be another strike
against his own “America-first energy plan.”
Seeking the
Underlying Rationale
In other
words, Trump’s plan will undoubtedly prove to be an enigma wrapped in a
conundrum inside a roiling set of contradictions. Although it appears to
offer boom times for every segment of the fossil fuel industry, only carbon as
a whole will benefit, while many individual companies and sectors of the market
will suffer. What could possibly be the motivation for such a bizarre and
planet-enflaming outcome?
To some
degree, no doubt, it comes, at least in part, from the president-elect’s deep
and abiding nostalgia for the fast-growing (and largely regulation-free)
America of the 1950s. When Trump was growing up, the United States was on
an extraordinary expansionist drive and its output of basic goods, including
oil, coal, and steel, was swelling by the day. The country’s major
industries were heavily unionized; the suburbs were booming; apartment buildings
were going up all over the borough of Queens in New York City where Trump got
his start; cars were rolling off the assembly lines in what was then anything
but the “Rust Belt”; and refineries and coal plants were pouring out the
massive amounts of energy needed to make it all happen.
Having
grown up in the Bronx, just across Long Island Sound from Trump’s home borough,
I can still remember the New York of that era: giant smokestacks belching out
thick smoke on every horizon and highways jammed with cars adding to the
miasma, but also to that sense of explosive growth. Builders and
automobile manufacturers didn’t have to seriously worry about regulations back
then, and certainly not about environmental ones, which made life -- for them
-- so much simpler.
It’s that
carbon-drenched era to which Trump dreams of returning, even if it’s already
clear enough that the only conceivable kind of dream that can ever come from
his set of policies will be a nightmare of the first order, with temperatures
exceeding all records, coastal cities regularly under water, our forests in
flame and our farmlands turned to dust.
And don’t
forget one other factor: Trump’s vindictiveness -- in this case, not just
toward his Democratic opponent in the recent election campaign but toward those
who voted against him. The Donald is well aware that most Americans who
care about climate change and are in favor of a rapid transformation to a green
energy America did not vote for him, including prominent figures in Hollywood
and Silicon Valley who contributed lavishly to Hillary Clinton’s coffers
on the promise that the country would be transformed into a “clean energy superpower [29].”
Given his
well-known penchant for attacking [30] anyone
who frustrates his ambitions or speaks negatively of him, and his urge to
punish greens by, among other things, obliterating every measure adopted by
President Obama to speed the utilization of renewable energy, expect him to rip
the EPA apart and do his best to shred any obstacles to fossil fuel
exploitation. If that means hastening the incineration of the planet, so
be it. He either doesn’t care (since at 70 he won’t live to see it happen),
truly doesn’t believe in the science, or doesn’t think it will hurt his
company’s business interests over the next few decades.
One other
factor has to be added into this witch’s brew: magical thinking. Like so
many leaders of recent times, he seems to equate mastery over oil in
particular, and fossil fuels in general, with mastery over the world. In
this, he shares a common outlook with President Vladimir Putin of Russia,
who wrote [31] his
Ph.D. dissertation on harnessing Russia’s oil and gas reserves in order to
restore the country’s global power, and with ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, said
to be Trump’s top choice [32] for
Secretary of State and a long-term business partner of the Putin regime.
For these and other politicians and tycoons -- and, of course, we’re talking
almost exclusively about men here -- the possession of giant oil reserves is
thought to bestow a kind of manly vigor. Think of it as the national
equivalent of Viagra.
Back in
2002, Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies put the matter [33] succinctly:
“Oil fuels more than automobiles and airplanes. Oil fuels military power,
national treasuries, and international politics... [It is] a determinant of
well being, national security, and international power for those who possess
[it] and the converse for those who do not.”
Trump seems
to have fully absorbed this line of thinking. “American energy dominance
will be declared a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States,”
he declared [11] at
the Williston forum in May. “We will become, and stay, totally
independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations
hostile to our interests.” He seems firmly convinced that the accelerated
extraction of oil and other carbon-based fuels will “make America great again.”
This is
delusional, but as president he will undoubtedly be able to make enough of his
energy program happen to achieve both short term and long term energy mayhem.
He won’t actually be able to reverse the global shift [34] to
renewable energy now under way or leverage increased American fossil fuel
production to achieve significant foreign policy advantages. What his
efforts are, however, likely to ensure is the surrender of American
technological leadership in green energy to countries like China and Germany,
already racing ahead [35] in
the development of renewable systems. And in the process, he will also
guarantee that all of us are going to experience yet more extreme climate
events. He will never recreate the dreamy America of his memory or return
us to the steamy economic cauldron of the post-World War II period, but he may
succeed in restoring the smoggy skies and poisoned rivers that so characterized
that era and, as an added bonus, bring planetary climate disaster in his
wake. His slogan should be: Make America Smoggy Again.
[36]
Michael T.
Klare, a TomDispatch regular [37], is a
professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the
author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left [36]. A
documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is
available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on
Twitter at @mklare1 [38].
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter [39] and
join us on Facebook [40]. Check out
the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the
Dead [41], and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance,
Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World [42].
Copyright
2016 Michael T. Klare. Reprinted with permission [43]. May not
be reprinted without permission. Distributed by Agence Global [44].
Links:
[1] http://insideenergy.org/2016/11/09/energy-challenges-for-president-trump/
[2] https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/12/06/donald-trump-energy-memo-thomas-pyle/
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa
[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/11/09/president-trump-will-make-americas-energy-sector-great-again/#4bbb2b7c64e2
[5] https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/energy
[6] http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28312
[7] http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/meet-trumps-pick-to-disma_b_12832350.html
[9] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html
[10] http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-promises-deregulation-of-energy-production-1474566335
[11] https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan
[12] https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
[13] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard
[14] http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx
[15] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/energy-environment/a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps-promises-to-coal-miners.html
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/us/donald-trump-energy-economy.html
[17] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2A.htm
[18] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3a.htm
[19] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25272
[20] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28732
[21] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/politics/donald-trump-fracking.html
[22] http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266702-feds-target-methane-emissions-on-federal-land
[23] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/energy-environment/oil-prices.html
[24] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shale-telecoms-idUSKCN0XV07V
[25] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-04/u-s-army-corps-of-engineers-denies-dakota-access-pipe-permit
[26] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming/
[27] http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/investing/canada-economy-trouble-low-oil-price/
[28] http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/donald-trump-keystone-pipeline-support/
[29] https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/10/10/hillary-clintons-plan-for-combatting-climate-change-and-making-america-the-clean-energy-superpower-of-the-21st-century/
[30] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/donald-trump-twitter-carrier-chuck-jones.html
[31] http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/08/putins-thesis-raw-text/212739/
[32] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-exxon-donald-trump.html
[33] https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/10187.htm
[34] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176080/
[35] http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5497
[36] http://www.amazon.com/dp/1250023971/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[37] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176207/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_whose_finger_on_the_nuclear_button
[38] http://@mklare1
[39] https://twitter.com/TomDispatch
[40] http://www.facebook.com/tomdispatch
[41] http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608466485/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[42] http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463656/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[43] http://www.tomdispatch.com
[44] http://rights@agenceglobal.com
[2] https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/12/06/donald-trump-energy-memo-thomas-pyle/
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa
[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/11/09/president-trump-will-make-americas-energy-sector-great-again/#4bbb2b7c64e2
[5] https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/energy
[6] http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28312
[7] http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/meet-trumps-pick-to-disma_b_12832350.html
[9] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html
[10] http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-promises-deregulation-of-energy-production-1474566335
[11] https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan
[12] https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
[13] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard
[14] http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx
[15] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/energy-environment/a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps-promises-to-coal-miners.html
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/us/donald-trump-energy-economy.html
[17] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2A.htm
[18] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3a.htm
[19] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25272
[20] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28732
[21] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/politics/donald-trump-fracking.html
[22] http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266702-feds-target-methane-emissions-on-federal-land
[23] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/energy-environment/oil-prices.html
[24] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shale-telecoms-idUSKCN0XV07V
[25] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-04/u-s-army-corps-of-engineers-denies-dakota-access-pipe-permit
[26] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming/
[27] http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/investing/canada-economy-trouble-low-oil-price/
[28] http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/donald-trump-keystone-pipeline-support/
[29] https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/10/10/hillary-clintons-plan-for-combatting-climate-change-and-making-america-the-clean-energy-superpower-of-the-21st-century/
[30] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/donald-trump-twitter-carrier-chuck-jones.html
[31] http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/08/putins-thesis-raw-text/212739/
[32] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-exxon-donald-trump.html
[33] https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/10187.htm
[34] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176080/
[35] http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5497
[36] http://www.amazon.com/dp/1250023971/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[37] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176207/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_whose_finger_on_the_nuclear_button
[38] http://@mklare1
[39] https://twitter.com/TomDispatch
[40] http://www.facebook.com/tomdispatch
[41] http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608466485/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[42] http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463656/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[43] http://www.tomdispatch.com
[44] http://rights@agenceglobal.com
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment