Exporting oil is key to US progress on climate change

The last several months have been greatly encouraging for climate advocates. From the administration’s efforts to regulate power plants, to the Pope’s visit, to the international agreement in Paris, there is growing impetus toward a low carbon economy. At the same time, through a series of technological breakthroughs, America is producing dramatically more energy and using far less than anticipated only a decade ago. The result is that America is once again an energy superpower poised to confront economic, security and climate challenges from a position of strength.

Despite these significant changes, the right and left are stuck in a caricatured debate in which some of the loudest voices express disinterest in science while others openly disregard economics. Executive branch action is meaningful in the short term, but it is not possible to achieve effective energy and climate policy absent broad-based congressional support. Rather than capitalizing on the opportunity to build a forward-looking coalition that supports energy abundance and climate action, many continue to invest time and resources in symbolic battles that are irrelevant to climate change. These needless conflicts deepen the political divide that must be bridged to develop policy that respects both science and economics.

{mosads}The current example of unnecessary discord is the oil export debate. Allowing U.S. companies to compete in the global oil market does not impact the amount of oil used or carbon emissions. Global oil use and the resulting carbon emissions are determined by the demand for oil. Crude oil exported from the United States will displace crude oil produced in other places. Simply put, lifting the anachronistic crude oil ban is not a climate issue.

While the oil export ban is irrelevant to actual climate impacts, there are other aspects of our petroleum dependence and use that do impact carbon emissions. The United States must continue to play a leadership role in increasing fuel economy across the entire transportation sector. We must double down on investment in petroleum alternatives, devoting more resources to advanced battery technologies and promoting low-carbon transportation fuels. There are also a myriad of international development and trade issues that are relevant to global oil demand from the elimination of price controls and consumer subsidies for petroleum use to the design of growing cities to the international regulation of cargo ships.

In addition, oil production impacts land use, requires substantial water resources, can create challenges for wildlife habitat, and we can never completely eliminate the risk of accidents. While on balance, U.S. production is more rigorously regulated and employs more modern technology than oil produced in other nations, local environmental concerns are a legitimate cause for debate. From a climate standpoint, increasing U.S. production is marginally preferable as our extraction and transportation processes employ less energy and likely release less methane than the production U.S. oil would displace.

The economic and security benefits of lifting the export ban have been much discussed. Removing this market constraint will increase U.S. economic growth, create jobs in the energy, manufacturing and shipping industries, help balance our trade deficit and provide our allies a stable alternative to crude oil provided by hostile and unfriendly regimes. While one would hope that advocates for climate action would also care about these broader national imperatives, let’s acknowledge that for many the urgency to confront climate change trumps all else. Yet despite this sincere urgency, these same advocates appear vested in perpetuating the polarization that delays congressional action.

Many recognize that the transition to a low-carbon economy must be methodical and seek to avoid unnecessary harm to existing industries. While supporting decisive action, these advocates understand that oil, gas, and even coal will be part of the energy mix for decades to come—albeit in decreasing proportion to lower-carbon alternatives. However, the impression in the oil export debate that the most vociferous advocates are unconcerned with economic growth and domestic jobs is a step in the wrong direction. While it’s never easy to confront the loudest voices in the tent, those who have spent years arguing for sound science and fact-based debate should stand up to the unfounded attempt to tangle the  oil export and climate debates.

By lifting the oil export ban, Congress can demonstrate that energy abundance is not at odds with efforts to address climate change. In doing so we will take a small but important step toward laying the foundation for an energy and climate policy that is grounded in both science and economics.

Grumet is founder and president of the Bipartisan Policy Center.