http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38757-trump-s-carbon-obsessed-energy-policy-and-the-planetary-nightmare-to-come
[This is your energy policy on Koch, clearly a reality-altering
substance. links in on-line article]
Scroll through Donald Trump's campaign promises or listen to his
speeches and you could easily conclude that his energy policy 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 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
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).
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 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, US greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions will soar, wiping out the declines 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
to abide by their Paris commitments if the US 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 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 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 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"
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 to:
* Cancel America's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and stop
all payments of US 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, with its promise to
substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants,
along with mandated improvements in automotive fuel efficiency
standards, requiring major manufacturers to achieve an average of 54.5
miles per gallon in all new cars by 2025. As these constitute the heart
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 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 for cheap natural gas.
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 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 US gas output has
skyrocketed in recent years, jumping 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 -- a boon for the electrical
utility companies, which have converted 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% 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, "remain a major
restriction to shale production." (Presumably, this was a reference to
Obama administration measures aimed at 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 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 US
frackers, including some in the Bakken formation, have found themselves
forced to suspend operations or declare bankruptcy 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 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
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.
Not surprisingly, that industry, too, is under enormous pressure 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 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."
Given his well-known penchant for attacking 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 wrotehis 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 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 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 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 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 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.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel