In 1835, Alexis DeTocqueville, the noted French student of American democracy, observed that the U.S. was a dynamic nation, whose people tended to have strong if not always justified opinions.
Americans’ headstrong qualities have led to bold innovation and extraordinary leaps forward, from the “impossible” Erie Canal in 1825 to the 1969 moon landing. However, whereas scientific and technical innovations have constraints — if they have flaws, they don’t work — flawed political policies can cause great damage before they are resolved.
Today, the battle over climate change has the two political parties and their supporters almost completely at odds. A Pew Center poll showed that 59 percent of Democratic and leaning voters regarded climate change as a top priority, but only 12 percent of Republicans held this view.
Environmentalist criticism of the fossil fuel industry alleges that it had early information on global warming but subsequently carried out publicity and lobbying campaigns designed to diminish concern about the problem and support for government policies against climate change. A leading environmental scientist, Michael Mann, has called these corporations “the enemy.”
Anti-industry attitudes may seem justified for the foregoing reasons. Yet the past 40 years of mutual hostility between environmentalists and industry give no encouragement to the idea that greater hostility and harsher measures will yield progress. Need proof of this? President George H.W. Bush supported the last major update of the Clean Air Act and issued a moratorium on oil and gas leasing in most of the U.S.’s offshore waters. In contrast, President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.
Research indicates that polarization is the main obstacle to U.S. progress against climate change. Successful nations have industry as an integrated player in national policy. This issue is critical for the U.S., because cumulatively it has been the largest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Its policies have led Swedish daily newspapers to refer to the U.S. as “an environmental gangster.”
Swedes can carp about the U.S. because they are ahead of schedule to the national goal of net zero carbon emissions, with 58 percent renewable energy as a percent total energy in comparison with America’s 11 percent in 2020. Along with its record as an environmental leader, Sweden has a robust industry and trade surpluses, whereas the U.S. has record trade and budget deficits.
Energy supply is a core requirement for nations. It correlates closely with economic development. At the beginning of hydraulic fracturing in 2006, the U.S. imported 57 percent of crude oil needs. Fracking enabled the U.S. to become a net energy exporter in 2020. Because natural gas is the dominant product of fracked operations, it was available to replace coal in coal-fired power plants, accounting for a major portion of our emissions reductions since that time.
The fact that U.S. natural gas costs a quarter of prices in Europe has aided the U.S. industrial and personal economy and helped make possible large federal outlays for infrastructure and renewable energy development. The U.S. has become the largest supplier of liquid natural gas to Europe (27 percent) since the Ukrainian invasion.
An important consideration for reductions in fossil fuel use is that fracked oil and gas tracts have a shorter effective life and rely on continued drilling operations. Oil and gas from conventional reservoirs may produce for decades. Therefore, once renewable energy becomes more available, fracked petroleum will be more easily and rapidly discontinued than conventional reservoirs.
A factor that plays a critical role in public policy is the fact that whereas Democratic and Republican voters agree on few issues, the one area in common, according to the Pew poll, is the economy. Even the Biden administration, which is committed to green energy policy, recognized that excessively aggressive action against the oil and gas industry could create price shocks or interruption in energy supply that would lose popular support in an already tenuous political environment.
Whatever one might think of American oil companies, they are among the most efficient and technically advanced in the nation. Overaggressive policies could demoralize industry and introduce the Enron syndrome of companies adopting politically expedient policies.
Major environmental non-profits are not innocents in the U.S. conflict over energy policy, Except for Environmental Defense Fund and the World Resources Institute, most prioritize attacking fossil fuel companies through lawsuits and blocking industry initiatives rather than promoting renewable or carbon-free energy development and other positive initiatives. Their antagonism is reciprocated by industry. Emphasis in industry leadership is on loyalty; new executives with progressive ideas are neither attracted to nor would be accepted by industry.
This paradigm must change, because industry’s technological and other resources are critical in transitioning to green energy. The Scandinavian nations and Germany have shown the way forward, though it may be hard to translate these to the U.S. while the parties are so sharply divided.
In Northern Europe, industry is a key participant in government planning for energy and environmental policies. Government gains by taking advantage of industry information and perspectives and minimizes opposition, while industry gains insights on governmental goals and initiatives. In short, industry becomes a partner in policymaking, rather than regarding government as the enemy, as in the U.S.
If a more cooperative policy were introduced, then U.S. companies, the American Petroleum Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing 3 million businesses, would have a stake in employing creative and open-minded leaders to participate in government planning.
Frank T. Manheim is an affiliate professor and distinguished research fellow at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government.