Subscribe to our free, weekly email newsletter!

Andreoli on Oil & Fuel: Energy is a bipartisan issue

By Derik Andreoli
November 01, 2012

With the presidential election just around the corner, divisive and intentionally misleading partisan talking points on energy have come to dominate the media.

These talking points apply a layer of partisan paint to what are truly bipartisan policies, thus creating an “us versus them” mentality on both sides of the aisle. More importantly, they simplify public perception of our current energy situation, what’s possible with regard to energy independence, and what steps will take us in the right direction.

While one candidate or the other may benefit in the short term by oversimplifying energy issues and sowing the seeds of division, such gains are made at the expense of long-term prosperity by erasing the significant amount of agreement that exists between Republicans and Democrats on energy and related environmental issues. As a case in point, few would view any of the following issues as bipartisan.

  • Environmental regulation

  • Alternative energy subsidies

  • “Drill baby drill”

  • Oil pipeline promotion

Environmental regulation and alternative energy subsidies have come to be associated with Democrats, and oil pipelines and “Drill Baby Drill” with Republicans. Such generalizations obscure more than they reveal and needlessly consume a truly scarce resource: bipartisan cooperation.

Few realize that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created with the stroke of a pen held by none other than President Richard Nixon, and the Environmental Protection Act, which shares its acronym and general goals, was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. Nixon also signed into law the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act—all of which have complicated domestic oil and gas production and refining as well.

Ironically, laws outlined by these acts are being used by “fracktivists”—those opposed to hydraulic fracturing—to slow or halt unconventional gas production.

Of course Nixon and Bush weren’t secret Greenpeace operatives who infiltrated the highest level of government. Rather, each happened to be President when the will of the people insisted that deteriorating environmental health be addressed. These pieces of legislation, which first passed through the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, were common sense initiatives that addressed among other things, the impacts that energy production and consumption (especially of fossil fuels) have on the environment and society.

Neither party can take full credit for the positive impacts that these initiatives have had, nor can one party take the full blame for the economic inefficiencies that accompany these regulations.

Energy production and consumption will always have negative externalities that need to be mediated, and politics is the art of such mediation. Partisan talking points and the “us versus them” mentality that they enshrine, inhibit the greater good.

Alternative energy
When we think of alternative energy sources, we see a similar pattern of bipartisanism hidden behind partisan talking points. Traditional energy sources include coal and conventional oil and natural gas.

Alternative energy sources include not only the obvious “green” contenders—wind, solar, and hydro—but also the wildly successful production of unconventional oil and gas resources including coal bed methane and hydro-fracked shale oil and shale gas.

While many would not include unconventional fossil fuels in the “alternative energy” category, they share a number of important characteristics with wind and solar. The development of each requires expensive basic research, complex technology development, and lead times that are best measured in decades.

As a consequence, none of the three (solar, wind, and unconventional oil and gas) would make viable investments at the early stage of development. If left only to the private sector, there will be underinvestment in these risky technologies that are not likely to earn a positive return for decades—and this is why all three require government subsidies and assistance while in the development phase.

Popular discourse would suggest that all Republicans are in favor of fracking, and all Democrats oppose the practice, but it will no doubt come as a shock that the development of hydrofracking extends back to the Carter administration. That’s right, the technology that has pushed natural gas prices down by 75% or more in just the last few years and raised the ire of environmentalists across the globe has been under development for more than 30 years—and can trace its seed funding back to a Democrat.

Of course this funding was continued by Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, and was further supported by Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama.

As Dan Steward, the former geologist for Mitchell Energy who pioneered commercial shale gas production in Texas, explains: “The government was behind the critical moments and tools in the shale gas revolution [including] massive hydraulic fracking, 3-D mapping, and horizontal drilling.” By the way, Steward describes himself as “conservative as hell,” but as an industry pioneer he recognizes that the Department of Energy programs that sustained the effort received support from both Democrat and Republican administrations.

Wind and solar have been similarly subsidized by Democrats and the GOP alike. Recent grumblings about the $12 billion wind power tax credit, which President Obama supports, paint the subsidy as another example of government overreach and overspending. Yet the fact remains that the wind tax credit was signed into law by President George W. Bush, and even with historically low natural gas prices, wind remains cost competitive in many parts of the country. When natural gas prices rise, and they will, wind will become a more attractive alternative.

The GOP has similarly painted solar subsidies as being supported only by Democrats, and Republicans have had a field day kicking the Solyndra bankruptcy around. While it is true that Solyndra received hundreds of millions of tax dollars, and the company contributed campaign donations to Obama, the company also received more than $1 billion in private capital from Republican and Democrat investors alike.

This fact has not kept the Solyndra case from becoming a Republican punching bag, and Solyndra is not the only solar firm that has failed recently. Take as another case in point the failure of Amonix, whose recent bankruptcy failed to attract the same level of attention from Republican pugilists. While Amonix’s late CEO, Brian Robertson, donated to Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, and the company’s modest PAC funneled donations to his party, the company’s single biggest government subsidy came in the form of an research and development grant awarded by the Bush administration.

Clearly both Republicans and Democrats from both the public and private sectors saw the value in solar, and many, if not most, still do. The problem from the near-term investment perspective is two-fold. On the one hand, even cheaper and more heavily subsidized solar panels from China were dumped on the market at prices domestic firms couldn’t match. On the other, natural gas prices fell through the floor as a consequence of the (temporary) glut created by the rush to hydraulic fracking—which, again, was only possible after 30 plus years of subsidies and support from both Republicans and Democrats.

In the long run, we need investment in wind and solar to be sustained just as it was for unconventional oil and gas production. In the long run we will be rewarded.

About the Author

Derik Andreoli

Derik Andreoli, Ph.D.c. is the Senior Analyst at Mercator International, LLC. He welcomes any comments or questions, and can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Subscribe to Logistics Management magazine

Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Get timely insider information that you can use to better manage your
entire logistics operation.
Start your FREE subscription today!

Recent Entries

less than one percent of all U.S. businesses export, and of those that do, the majority interacts only with NAFTA trading partners Mexico and Canada.

Seasonally-adjusted (SA) for-hire truck tonnage in April at 134.8 (2000=100) fell 2.1 percent from March and on the heels of a 4.4 percent February to March decrease.

The current price at $2.357 per gallon saw a 6-cent increase on the way to its highest weekly price of 2016 based on EIA data. And it is also the highest price since the week of December 14, when it was at $2.338 per gallon.

As e-commerce growth and demand goes, so goes the increased need for e-commerce fulfillment centers and distribution centers, according to the debut issue of the Global Prime Logistics Rents report recently issued by global commercial real estate firm CBRE Group Inc.

In this new world of Omni-channel—profitable and efficient anytime, anywhere fulfillment is the goal.

Article Topics

Columns · Global Logistics · November 2012 · Oil · All topics


Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

© Copyright 2016 Peerless Media LLC, a division of EH Publishing, Inc • 111 Speen Street, Ste 200, Framingham, MA 01701 USA