From growing wealth in rural America to building national energy self-sufficiency, recent developments in the American hydrocarbon landscape are nothing short of global game-changers. If exploited with care, America’s new-found abundance of oil and natural gas – a product of both long-term government R&D and of visionary, risk-taking entrepreneurs – offers great opportunity to revitalize our industries, strengthen economic performance, boost employment, and enhance energy security. But there remains another huge, domestic resource that is cheaper, quicker, cleaner – energy efficiency. It would simply be penny-wise and pound foolish to let our energy efficiency resource go untapped as the nation’s giddiness over our abundance of domestic oil and gas continues to grow.

Remember the energy crises of the 70s? ... the 90s? ... Katrina? .... Deepwater Horizon? We need to learn from our past mistakes and avoid being lulled into a false sense of security when energy times are good, only to suffer monumental economic malaise when supplies tighten or are disrupted and price volatility roils markets.

We have been dealt (yet another) winning energy hand. And this time, we need to use our new-found abundance strategically and well -- with an eye to creating a long-term, smart energy economy. If not, I fear we will be doomed yet again to dire consequences that surely will come by simply riding the energy bubble for however long it lasts, rather than locking in a strong national energy policy framework.

Energy efficiency offers an important means of shielding our people and our economy from the vagaries in energy supplies and prices. It has important attributes that other fuel sources do not: energy efficiency is secure and reliable; it is cheaper than any other fuel source including natural gas at today’s prices; and it cannot be disrupted by an accident, work stoppage or weather event.

So, even as we look to exploit our new hydrocarbon resources, a first national energy policy priority must be driving gains in national energy productivity – that is, getting more economic bang (value-added, GDP, income) for each energy buck in every sector, from buildings to manufacturing to transportation.

Energy efficiency must be the bedrock of any national energy policy. And don’t just take it from me; the oil and gas industry agrees. The National Petroleum Council 2011 report, Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, recommends energy efficiency as a core national strategy.

For those who follow energy issues on a daily basis, it is no surprise that the richest energy nation in the world – the United States – is on pace to be the largest producer of oil. In their most recent World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency is forecasting that by 2020, the U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production. Factor in our status as the world’s largest producer of natural gas and holder of the Earth’s biggest coal resources, and the United States is exceedingly well positioned to provide generations of affordable energy—that is, if we choose to take advantage of our resource wealth.

As the Institute for Energy Research noted in our North American Energy Inventory, the U.S. has more oil resources than the entire world has used since it was first discovered in Titusville, Pennsylvania over 150 years ago. With respect to natural gas, total supplies in North America dwarf those of other countries, with more technically recoverable natural gas resources than the combined total proved natural gas reserves found in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan. And we have known forever that American coal is king of the world – North America’s combined 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal resources are bigger than the five largest non-North American countries’ reserves combined (Russia, China, Australia, India, Ukraine).

But for every day Americans, these facts were relatively unknown until recently.

That is because for years the environmentalists and the peak oil parishioners have advanced and perpetuated falsehoods and inaccuracies with respect to the volume and availability of energy resources in and under our country and continent.

For years, the eco-lobby and the politicians they bankroll have created the illusion of scarcity that empowered the government to deny citizens access to affordable, reliable and much-needed energy. Furthermore, using supposed scarcity as their excuse, politicians and government agencies justified increasing the power and budget of government while substituting their politically-favored energy choices for those chosen by consumers and the marketplace.

The deleterious consequences of the peak oil rationale have already manifested themselves in federal energy policies. Professing the belief that America only possesses two to three percent of the world’s oil, the President and his agencies have challenged the need to open up additional acreage for energy exploration, arguing, “Why bother?” And on the other hand, supposedly dwindling oil and gas resources have provided the justification for the government to spend billions of dollars to subsidize “alternative” energy sources that otherwise could not survive in a market economy where consumers make their own energy decisions.

Those that doubt that there is in fact an abundance of energy under our lands and that the federal government is restricting access to these resources need look no further than the vast discrepancy between production on the federal estate versus non-federal lands. By every measure, the amount of energy resources being produced in the U.S. is increasing on private and state lands, while production on federal lands are declining. The lower production levels on federal lands aren’t for lack of resources; rather, they are low because it can take years in some cases to obtain permits to drill on the small percentage of federal lands that are leased.

To this point, “comprehensive” federal energy policy is truly an oxymoron. At least 106 federal laws limit access to U.S. resources, increase delays related to exploration and production, and/or increase costs of development (see pages 23-25). And that list doesn’t include the thousands of regulations imposing endless delays on energy production on federal lands. For example, it takes 307 days for the federal government to process a permit to drill, but only 10 days in North Dakota, 14 days in Ohio, and 27 days in Colorado.

The burden of federal permitting processes has been most felt in those unfortunate states with higher percentages of federal lands located within their borders. While neighboring states like North Dakota are experiencing an explosion of economic activity and job creation, in places like Utah and Wyoming, energy production is largely subject to the whims of government. According to the Western Energy Alliance, in these two states alone, one federal policy – the NEPA review process – has prevented the creation of over 67,000 jobs, $4.5 billion in wages, and $15.4 billion in economic activity.

Meanwhile, North Dakota enjoys the lowest unemployment rate in the nation and its state coffers are flush with revenue. In Fiscal Year 2011, North Dakota brought in $1.7 billion in oil tax revenue, and it is one of the only states not to have a budget deficit. In fact, the state has a $1.6 billion budget surplus, which is credited to higher sales tax collections from the booming oil economy

Frankly, Americans deserve more from their elected officials. Every single president since Richard Nixon has declared energy independence a national priority, and yet it has only been the private sector’s use of hydraulic fracturing for shale oil and gas resources under state and private lands that has brought us closer to that goal. And what role has the federal government played in that equation? None, except to propose that hydraulic fracturing needs to be further regulated while at the same time being unable to point to a single case where it has been confirmed to have contaminated groundwater.

Being able to produce and use affordable, abundant energy is, fundamentally, a means of freedom. But for those seeking to create a crisis that provides an opportunity to direct the way we live, work and act, access to domestic energy is a threat. In a very real sense, the more energy we have, the less power they will have. Energy abundance ends the justification for central energy decision-making.

America’s energy future can be bright. Converting that potential into something real and transformative will not be easy—nor is success guaranteed. However, the fact that the environmental lobby and politicians can no longer hide behind the myth of energy scarcity brings us one step closer to empowering the public over the politicians, and to making the lives of average Americans better in the long run.

The 2012 election was historic for the natural gas industry. For the first time, domestic energy production became a top ballot box issue for candidates and voters across America. As we approach 2013, it’s important our President and elected officials of the 113^th Congress don’t forget the economic and job creating benefits of the natural gas boom.

With the right pro-energy development policies, millions of energy jobs could be unlocked for deserving, hard working Americans. A recent IHS Global Insight study showed unconventional oil and natural gas production supports over 1.7 million U.S. jobs today and could create 3.5 million jobs by 2035. States like North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Ohio are feeling the incredible economic implications of the natural gas boom and are contributing to America’s economy at a rapid pace. In 2010 alone, the oil and natural gas industry delivered roughly $476 billion to the U.S. economy, which was roughly equal to 60% of the 2009 federal stimulus.

These economic benefits cannot go overlooked next year or beyond, especially as our country seeks to recover and millions of Americans remain unemployed. Energy policies that expand the ability to access America’s vast and clean natural gas resources must be enacted.

American is at the cusp of a new energy future. Pro-energy policies can take America on the path to a lasting economic stability and true energy security. Now is the time to expand development of our nation’s vast energy resources. And now is the time for our government to help ensure America brings our energy abundance into the market to use so we all may see a better tomorrow.

This President’s legacy can be one of prosperity, trade and eased geopolitical pressure. The changes have begun, but as the International Energy Agency stressed in World Energy Outlook, 2012, it all depends on government policies that support investment and permit environmentally safe exploration and production, onshore and offshore.

President Obama’s original energy policy sought new taxes on American oil and gas companies (only) and slowed or barred exploration and development in prospective areas. The taxes would reduce competitiveness and favor foreign companies; the tax revenue would go to subsidies, loans and grants so “green energy” could displace fossil fuels overnight and create 5 million new jobs. The jobs are few; many green companies are in, or approaching, bankruptcy.

Yet American oil and gas companies provide 9.2 million U.S. jobs and 7.7% of our GDP, invest more than $50 billion per year here, and pay very high tax rates (44.3%). Since 2008, oil and gas added nearly 120,000 new jobs; the economy lost 4.5 million. After decades of declining U.S. production and growing dependence on foreign oil, American technology opened vast new oil and gas resources on private lands. The U.S. is the world’s largest gas producer, and soon will be the largest oil producer. Domestic oil is replacing imports as demand continues to drop. Cheap natural gas is fueling once-closed U.S. factories and bringing some back from overseas. Gas is fast replacing coal in electric generation, making it likely that ours will be the only nation to meet its 2020 goal, reducing greenhouse gases by 17%.

States are increasing regulatory presence to ensure proper handling of shale oil and gas wastes, companies are recycling more “fracking” fluids and EPA has said it knows of no case of gas or oil “migration” from fracking into water wells. The President should open more lands to develop resources, and permit the Keystone XL Pipeline to move Canadian tar sands crude to Texas refineries, increasing U.S. supply security while reducing the need to truck it the Pacific for export to Asia.

Such policy could bring energy self-sufficiency, add billions in federal, state and local revenues, help cut the Federal deficit, slash unemployment, clean the environment, boost trade, provide an energy bridge to the future and reduce geopolitical concerns. We would feel less world energy market price volatility, all without sacrificing 85% of our energy supply, in the futile hope that 7% “green energy” could meet our needs overnight. Let’s pray for the Administration to work for this; otherwise let us pray.

I continue to be mystified as to how William O’Keefe can just ignore climate change. Does he not believe in it? Is it a nuisance to his obedient religious-like belief in “the market?” Or is it the older generation simply unable to accept new realities? Whatever the reason, it’s impossible to take anything he says seriously when he doesn’t put climate change firmly on the table where it belongs. This is a shame because his “law of unintended consequences” theme has some basis. This is why we focus on the Clean Air Act, a forty year old program with a proven and successful track record.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the current natural gas glut feels like we won the lotto. Energy abundance after a lifetime of supposed scarcity and instability is this good: it makes me feel like the U.S., to borrow from a scene in Revenge of the Nerds, is a civilization in ascendency rather than decline. The idea that we have more than Saudi Arabia puts a big smile on my face.

Now, let’s try to not end up like those people who score an absurd lotto win and then turn up broke ten years later. I would point to just two of the factors that are going to contribute to reducing our new-found pot of energy gold more quickly than some predict:

1. We might have a lot, but others do not. Sophisticated global markets will make sure that a surplus here will end up where there is shortage. So claims of enough energy to last for centuries, based on consumption in the U.S., are wildly optimistic at best.

2. Even if our gas and oil supply would stay within our borders, consumption patterns are predictable—high supply and low price will lead to more consumption, which will draw down our supply faster than anticipated. Relaxing our efforts to wean ourselves from carbon-based fuel because we have a large supply now is wise in the way that Hugo Chavez is wise for subsidizing gasoline in Venezuela because he has oil (18 cents--cheaper than bottled water). That is to say, not wise at all, obviously unsustainable over the long term, but popular with his voters. Let's hope our political leadership can find enough courage and intelligence to at least do better than Mr. Chavez--that's not a high bar to aspire to.

To paraphrase King, the arc of our energy supply is long, but it bends toward scarcity. Whether it is today or in 200 years, our supply of oil, gas and coal will eventually run out, and on the way it will get more difficult to extract, more prone to accident, and more dangerous for climate change.

We need to use this unexpected national asset to fuel another century of American prosperity. But we need to use it judiciously, and use it to position our energy infrastructure (smart grid, renewables, etc.) for the long term rather than burying our heads in the shale and ignoring the obvious. At least, that is what a civilization in ascendency would do.

The much heralded report from the International Energy Agency notes that the United States is the world’s number one producer of natural gas, possesses the largest recoverable reserves of coal, and is poised to surpass Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer by 2020. Acknowledging this newfound abundance, a growing chorus of politicians and pundits is now chanting the mantra of “energy independence for America.” But this milestone will only be achieved if public policies and regulations are accommodating, and such is not likely to be the case.

For example, in terms of regulating hydraulic fracturing, both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department are champing at the bit. The EPA has already issued a rule on shale gas emissions and is proposing another on the use of diesel fuel in fracking. These initiatives are underway despite no evidence that the states are doing a poor job of regulating the process. The result will simply be to impose another layer of compliance costs on an industry that has already curtailed drilling because of historically low prices for natural gas.

In the run up to the election, the EPA delayed implementing rules for ozone air quality, industrial boilers, and carbon standards. But the agency is now likely to push through its “new source performance standards” for greenhouse gas emissions from power generators, with the likelihood that no new coal plant will ever be constructed. Again, what is the purpose of such a policy when market forces and cheap and abundant natural gas are already helping to clean the air?

Since 2005, 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation have been retired and another 15,000 megawatts will be off-line by 2016. These coal plants are being replaced primarily by natural gas which has a “carbon footprint” about half that of coal. Whereas in 2005 45 percent of America’s electricity was being generated by coal, by 2016 that percentage will be less than 30, with natural gas taking up the slack.

GHG emissions are lower today than they were 20 years ago. Though the United States did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, we have exceeded the emissions reductions mandated by that agreement. This decline has not occurred because of “clean energy’s” contribution to the nation’s power mix; renewable energy today accounts for less than 5 percent of electricity generation capacity nationwide. Rather, most of the credit goes to natural gas.

President Obama continues to argue for higher taxes on the oil and gas industry while retaining egregious subsidies for renewables that have totaled $15 billion over the past four years. During the campaign, he frequently cited the 75,000 “green” jobs that had been created on his watch. But he never mentioned the 700,000 new jobs created in the oil and gas industry without any direct subsidies.

America’s fossil fuel renaissance has occurred more in spite of, than because of, policy actions in Washington. The danger going forward is that ill-conceived, anti-carbon policies and regulations during the second Obama administration will derail America’s energy boom with dire long-term economic and security implications for the nation.

Groucho Marx once observed that politics was looking for problems, finding them everywhere, misdiagnosing them, and then applying the wrong solutions. That has been the history of energy policy over the past 40 years, and it will continue to be the prescription if Congress and the President draw the wrong lessons from past failures.

The US is blessed with an abundance of fossil energy that can contribute to greater private investment, job creation, energy security, and a more favorable balance of trade if the right policies are adopted.

The natural gas bonanza can contribute significantly to our economic growth and environmental improvement. Energy growth going forward will be in the power generation sector. Policies that efficiently help speed the transition from coal to gas will allow us to meet growing demand economically, and with lower emissions. Affordable natural gas is already leading to increased investment by chemical and petrochemical companies, and investments by industries already using natural gas will follow. Those investments create jobs and spur economic growth.

The role of natural gas in transportation will evolve and should not be forced or subsidized by the government. Central fleets and other commercial vehicles will lead the way because of fuel economics. Those will lead to infrastructure investments. Natural gas for personal use will be limited because of fuel tanks have to be larger since natural gas is less dense that gasoline or diesel.

Maximizing natural gas’ potential will require restraint to avoid premature and excessive regulation of hydraulic fracturing and a willingness to permit facilities for exporting gas since we have the potential to produce more than domestic consumption.

“Fracking” has become unnecessarily controversial even though it is a proven technology. It is clear that fracking and shale gas technologies are evolving and states are proving to be laboratories for the development of improvements and production standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should work with states to help them obtain the information they need to establish sensible drilling regulations. If instead the EPA pre-empts state regulations with a national ones, it almost certainly will be too heavy handed and counter-productive.

Our conversion to gas has led to a reduction in CO2 emissions and according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we will not return to 2005 levels until 2035. Breakthroughs in production technologies are leading to increased natural gas development in other countries as well. As the global potential for natural gas production is realized, the emission reductions that we have experienced will be seen in other nations.

Finding ways for other nations, especially emerging ones, to develop the capacity to adopt newer energy technologies and move from coal to gas will do more to restrain global emissions, cost-effectively, than any global treaty.

In pursuing emission reductions, it is important not to lose sight of two important facts. First, contrary to popular skepticism, there is no compelling scientific evidence that human activities are “mainly” responsible for warming over the past century. Second, there are 1.6 billion people who lack access to commercial energy. Their lives are spent in extreme poverty. There is a moral imperative to help them achieve a more acceptable standard of living and to accept the increased emissions that accompany economic growth.

At the end of the 20^th century, no one would have believed that domestic oil production would dramatically increase or that our reliance on oil imports would shrink. The increased production that has taken place mainly on private lands demonstrates that our oil reserves are far from exhausted, that they can be produced safely, and that exploration and production bring increased investments and job creation. The government needs to allow more development on federal lands because of the economic benefits, increased energy security, and opportunities for increased exports.

Coal as an energy source for power generation here has a limited future as utilities switch to natural gas and new generation nuclear units are installed. While our use of coal will decline, it will still be used in other parts of the world. It has increasing value as an export commodity. Environmental arguments should not become an obstacle to exports because coal will be used and we should participate in the global marketplace.

If the government becomes less intrusive in the fossil energy market, stronger economic growth will follow. Government should focus on basic research to advance technology and innovation. In addition, to research related to energy technologies, the government should reallocate research dollars that now are spent supporting the global warming orthodoxy to research focused on better understanding the climate system and the forces that produce changes in it.

At some point, the United States will need to have an honest discussion about American consumption patterns and our culture of hyper-consumerism. Because energy use is at the center of our society’s activities, it is in many ways the center of the problem. While there are many value-based reasons to have this conversation, the most utilitarian reason is to save ourselves. The reality is that the current U.S. domestic boom in natural gas and oil production is: adding social tensions in diverse places such as North Dakota, Pennsylvania, California and New York; creating environmental problems such as dirty water, toxic pollution and earthquake risks; and, adding to the runaway climate change that contributed to Hurricane Sandy and that could eventually overwhelm our capacity to deal with ocean level rise, human disease vectors and unfathomable heat waves, droughts and food production problems. And to what end? So that a very elite upper crust of American society can get wealthy at the expense of everyone else? Are we really sowing productive seeds for our progeny?

But, currently, Washington, D.C. is almost incapable of responding to this energy challenge. Leaders of both political parties are completely captive to the short-term cash infusions that these heroin-like addictive practices are producing. Republicans whine loudly over the pittance of support we grant the nascent wind, solar and geothermal sectors that possess tangible promise. The blow horn of Big Fossil Fuel makes it appear that any reasonable regulation of their activities is sacrilege, despite the plain fact that these industries could not have started or still flourish without the multiple billions of dollars of socialized annual federal subsidies thrown their way. The only real hope at present is the Environmental Protection Agency, whose job it is to implement the bipartisan-passed and successful Clean Air Act. Of course, this is precisely why the fossil fuel industries feel compelled to attack the agency and the act with such relish; they actually do their job! You can be sure Congress will be looking to weaken, not strengthen, the Clean Air Act over the next two years. The last gasps of a dirty coal industry, in particular, will get increasingly nasty.

Never, literally never, has a society been moving in a direction so opposite to what the best available science tells us. It took us a while to regulate cigarettes, for example, but at least social pressure made the practice less than celebratory for many years. Not so with greenhouse pollutants. The President, as a prime example, talks a good game on climate change rhetorically, but continues to embrace natural gas and oil in ways that almost completely resemble George W. Bush. When pressed, the President talks about the importance of economic growth over climate regulation, but never tells us what type of economic growth he envisions, nor tells us how such growth will not eventually swallow us whole. Inside-the-Beltway pundits fret about the “fiscal cliff,” but only a handful of politicians have the guts to say “let’s eliminate all corporate subsidies” because that would imperil their re-election campaigns that are already ginned up for November 2014 and beyond. Why does not one political leader want to talk about 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide-equivalent in the atmosphere, the number that Dr. James Hansen and many other climate scientists tell us will prevent changing life on earth as our species has always known it? We are currently at 390 ppm, and climbing rapidly.

True conservatism, not the reactionary brand of the current mantle holders, abhors radical change in favor of cautious incrementalism. We probably need more than incrementalism right now to stem disastrous climate change. But we’re heading quickly, not even incrementally backwards, in the wrong direction. Liberals and conservatives alike are twiddling as Rome literally burns. Who would have thought that despite the mocks against her, Sarah Palin’s “Drill Baby Drill” would be our current national mantra? It’s a sad state of affairs. Lisa Jackson’s implementation of the Clean Air Act may be the most historically significant thing that occurs over the next four years. Will the agency do its job? Will Obama let it? What would a modern day Lincoln do?

With roughly 20 percent of the world’s population without electricity, one of the greatest challenges that humanity will face this century is improving access to affordable, reliable energy. Vast amounts of energy will need to be produced and consumed to grow economies at a rate that outpaces global population growth, which is forecast to increase by another 2 billion by 2050.

Currently, about half of the world’s population lives in energy poverty and this number will grow significantly if access doesn’t markedly improve. Most of those 3 billion today are located in Sub-Saharan Africa and developing countries in Asia. Eradication of this form of poverty is indispensable to America’s efforts to advance political governance in those regions, which in turn is needed for global stability. It’s no coincidence that the majority of failed states or states at substantial risk of failure exist in areas of energy poverty.

Failed or failing states, such as Somalia and Afghanistan, offer terrorist organizations relative freedom to build their operations and plan strikes against America. This national security threat is growing as we face a slowdown in the global economy and an apparent deteriorating situation in the Arab world and in Pakistan. More than ever, we need to promote economic development as a check against totalitarianism and terrorism; that requires a plan based on realities, including the need to increase significantly the poor’s access to fossil fuels – not the steps “fantasized” by the environmentalist community where every village in Sub-Saharan Africa has a wind or solar farm.

And rather than meet multiple times per year under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to discuss ways to limit fossil fuel exploitation, America should be doing the opposite – leading an international effort to promote the expanded production and consumption of fossil fuels, civil nuclear energy, and renewables that are competitive with traditional resources.

Unfortunately, back in Washington, we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the grave national security problem that energy poverty creates and its link to political instability and terrorism. Instead, we choose to waste countless hours discussing ways to starve Americans and the global community from affordable, reliable energy by taxing fossil fuels, regulating civil nuclear more heavily, or deploying systems that cannot be used for baseload, such as wind power.

It gets worse. In America, we have environmentalist groups who are actually trying to prevent U.S. energy exports to the developing world, all in the name of saving the planet from climate change. This type of advocacy is highly irresponsible – not to mention immoral due to the negative impacts a ban on U.S. energy exports would have on the global poor, including the precedent established for other energy-rich countries.

And few people here in Washington seem to realize that. It’s almost as if the environmentalists have played a Jedi mind trick on the multitudes of policy wonks in this city, waving their hands before us, pointing to coal, natural gas, and petroleum, and softly saying, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”

Obviously, Washingtonians need stronger minds to withstand such trickery.

Environmentalists, unquestionably, will counter with a passionate plea that they are trying to avoid a climate impact that could cause untold suffering for the world’s poor and in the worse-case scenario, spark the mass extinction of the human race. Of course, this ignores the fact that the poor could better withstand climate impacts if they had access to energy, which is indispensable to providing clean air, clean water, as well as resilient health systems. Environmentalists also appear to forget that the most likely mass-extinction scenario by a factor of X to the X power in our life time is nuclear war – and not the melting of the icecaps due to the Keystone Pipeline.

It’s unlikely that America will have much of a part in preventing nuclear proliferation this century simply because we aren’t building much civil nuclear. As a consequence, the country will soon lose our manufacturing capacity and know-how to produce nuclear goods and services, followed by a corresponding diminished voice in international negotiations. That role will be left to the Chinese and others.

But because of our potential as a global energy powerhouse, we can play a major role in expanding the production and consumption of all forms of energy to help promote global economic growth and eradicate poverty, which in turn will create the stable political systems and governance that is needed to manage proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Certainly, America should be a model to other energy-rich countries, exploiting our resources as much as possible, using free market principles as a guideline and exporting those fuels, technologies, and savoir-faire across the globe.

As part of a global strategy to eradicate energy poverty, Washington should support the deployment of affordable, reliable energy, which in most cases, would rule out renewable energy systems. We should not abandon renewable energy, but we should deploy those systems only when they are competitive and make sense, given a country’s circumstances, energy mix, and economic profile.

In reality, only fossil fuels and nuclear power can provide the amount of affordable, reliable energy needed to fuel the industrialization that we are likely to see between now and 2050. Creating an international regime that seeks to limit the production, consumption, and exports of fossil fuels in the name of climate change will only increase the odds of creating a world that’s more likely to produce a mass-extinction event caused by a nuclear exchange.

Environmentalists claim that they embrace science, but in reality, they ignore history and all of the knowledge that humanity has gained about itself over these past millennia. Certainly, if we survive as a species, humanity will need to meet the challenge of severe climate change impacts, but for this century, we would be better off to worry much more about the failure of political systems and the global risk that it carries. The shape and form of our national energy discussions should flow from that logic.

America’s boom in petroleum production will significantly reduce US oil imports and annual balance of payments. The parallel boom in natural gas will stabilize electricity prices and cut coal-electric generation again (now down to 40% of US electric generation) as well as force out old and uneconomical nuclear power plants like those recently announced in Wisconsin and California. This buys the US time to scale long term sustainable domestic renewable energy and high value energy efficiency to position the US for generations, not just the one extra generation we get from these finite resources. This gift of better drilling and fracturing technologies, supported by the US taxpayer via the US Department of Energy, represents bipartisan consensus through successive Administrations to drive a portfolio of mature and emerging technologies to provide the US with a broad set of energy options. Given this short term enviable energy situation, the United States should now finally enact national interconnection standards for distributed generation and a national renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standards. US policymakers should pass an extension of tax credits for the new technologies gradually ramped down over 15 years along with the immediate phase out of the $70 billion of tax incentives for convention energy, now unnecessary as energy prices are stable due to these new extraction technologies. Again, we have another respite to allow us to prepare for the long term, maybe using the Native American guideline of what’s best for seven generations. Now politicians from both parties have planning horizons of two, four and six years, but maybe this time they will be different.