November 2012 Archives

The United States is producing more fossil fuels than ever.  So what--if anything--should President Obama and Congress do about it?

The United States is one of the world's biggest producers of oil, natural gas, and coal. In its World Energy Outlook 2012  published earlier this month, the International Energy Agency said that the United States is poised to surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer by 2020. Currently, the U.S. is the world's third-largest producer, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. The United States is already the world's largest producer of natural gas, recently surpassing Russia to claim that top spot; has the largest recoverable reserves of coal; and is second only to China in coal production.

Most of the new U.S. oil and natural gas production is coming from unconventional sources developed by hydraulic fracturing, a technology that blasts large amounts of a water, sand, and chemical mixture deep underground to break up rock and release the fossil fuel trapped inside. The process is controversial for its potential environmental impacts, including contaminating water supplies. Meanwhile, the United States is exporting coal at record rates because of increased demand overseas and lower demand at home.

What does this fossil-fuel boom mean for Washington's prospects of crafting comprehensive energy policy? How does it affect efforts here and around the world to control the greenhouse-gas emissions from these fossil fuels, which most scientists agree cause global warming? What specific policies, if any, should the administration and Congress enact in relation to the energy boom? Should Washington go to greater lengths to ensure that sources of renewable energy such as wind and solar, which emit no greenhouse gases, gain a bigger foothold despite steep competition from plentiful and cheaper fossil fuels?

11 responses: Kateri Callahan, Thomas J. Pyle, Bud Albright, Jack Rafuse, Bill Snape, Rich Deming, Bernard L. Weinstein, William O'Keefe, Bill Snape, David Banks, Scott Sklar

Should President Obama and Congress pursue a carbon tax?

The policy proposal has been garnering increasing attention among Washington's think tank and academic leaders across the ideological spectrum as a way to simultaneously combat global warming and cut the ballooning federal deficit. It's unclear whether it will gain traction in Congress, given the dicey politics of new taxes and climate change, let alone the combination of the two. To wit: Republican leaders in the House have signed a "no climate tax" pledge, indicating a steep path to passage through the House. These challenges aside, some experts say that Congress could impose a carbon tax in exchange for a lower income-tax rate as part of the comprehensive tax reform that lawmakers hope to tackle next year.

What are the policy pros and cons of a carbon tax? How does a carbon tax compare to other policy proposals, such as cap-and-trade, in terms of both political feasibility and policy? Can Congress overcome the political hurdles to pass such a measure? If so, what would it look like?

16 responses: Rachael Jonassen, Brent Erickson, Jim Kerr, Eileen Claussen, Marlo Lewis, David Kreutzer, Paul N. Cicio, Charles Drevna, Catrina Rorke, Brian Murray, William O'Keefe, Susan Dudley, Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., James Valvo, David Banks, Mark Muro

Do the results of the 2012 election pave the way for Washington to achieve bipartisan energy and environment policies?

With President Obama winning another four years in the White House, Democrats retaining control of the Senate, and Republicans keeping control of the House, things look generally the same now as they did before Election Day. Democrats gained two seats in the Senate and are expected to gain a handful in the House as well. Time will tell whether these gains translate into a more ambitious--and successful--congressional agenda.

In theory, a second-term president has the political freedom to implement more ambitious policies than in a first term when seeking reelection. Whether Obama pursues that route and has cooperation from Congress is an open question, especially on such controversial issues as climate change and energy policy.

 What pieces of legislation and administrative action in the areas of energy, environment, and climate policy could garner bipartisan support in a postelection atmosphere? Can the election wipe away the partisan rancor that has dominated the country's political discourse during this election cycle? Or, will the election deepen the partisan divide?

17 responses: Amy Harder, Phyllis Cuttino, Jennifer Holmgren, Daniel Simmons, Dennis McGinn, Mary Rosenthal, Bill Cooper, Eileen Claussen, Lance Brown, Alex Trembath, Amy Harder, Bill Snape, William O'Keefe, Mindy Lubber, Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., Don Santa, Scott Sklar

Updated Wednesday, Nov. 7, at 5 p.m.: With President Obama winning another four years in the White House, Democrats retaining control of the Senate and Republicans control of the House, things look generally the same now as they did before Election Day 2012. Now that the results are in, how does potential action on energy and environment issues change in Washington?

Original question, posted Monday, Nov. 5:

What are the major energy and environmental policies that hinge on the Election Day's outcome?

President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney have focused heavily on energy issues this election season, but they have given much less attention to environmental issues and global warming. Down-ballot races in both the Senate and House have pretty much followed this pattern.

Electoral politics aside, whoever wins the White House and the lawmakers who control the House and Senate will confront critical energy and environmental issues, including rules controlling air pollution, energy exports, and global warming.

What are the major energy and environmental issues that Washington must address postelection? Which policies could change the most depending on party control of the White House, the House, and the Senate? Are there any measures that could garner bipartisan support?

Or--contrary to the prevailing wisdom--are energy and environmental issues largely independent of who controls the federal government?

17 responses: Jamie Rappaport Clark, Jack Rafuse, Lance Brown, Heather Taylor-Miesle, Kate Offringa, Catrina Rorke, Bernard L. Weinstein, Barry Russell, Brent Erickson, Matthew Stepp, Evan Tracey, Carl Pope, David Holt, William O'Keefe, Blanche Lincoln, Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., Dennis McGinn