The Energy Debate in the US Election

Mitt Romney, candidate for the White House, scoffed at President Barack Obama’s environmental concerns. In his speech to accept the Republican nomination during the convention in Florida, Romney said: “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.” He then made a calculated pause that was met by laughs in the audience. Subsequently, wanting us to return to reality and leave eccentricities behind, he finished the thought: “MY promise … is to help you and your family.” From this, it seems that Romney does not consider climate change to be a problem that affects people and their families.

When it was time to make election promises, he posed five key steps to improve the life of the country. At the start of the agenda, he pointed out: “First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.” Good intentions, but it had little originality and for this reason, doubt rises over why Romney will be successful where his predecessors failed.

President Nixon in 1973 announced Project Independence, which was meant to guarantee oil self-sufficiency by 1980. How? Drilling more wells and with the entry of new fuel sources into the market. Since then, each U.S. president has reiterated the same intentions to reduce dependence on foreign oil. In the end, each turned over command with a raw burn worse than that of the previous government.

After Nixon came President Ronald Reagan, who proposed the need to develop “new technologies and more independence from foreign oil.”

Then, President George H. W. Bush stated, “there is no security for the United States in further dependence on foreign oil.” President Bill Clinton, for his part, said, “We need a long-term energy strategy to maximize conservation and maximize the development of alternative sources of energy”

President George W. Bush announced, “By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past” President Barack Obama acknowledged the above and in June of 2010 added, “For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.”

Only this year did President Obama urge Congress to stop the $4 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies.

With regards to Romney, it is difficult to discern how he will fulfill his promise, since he is in favor of lowering the efficiency standards followed by the automotive industry, a measure promoted by Obama that will permit a savings of 2 million barrels of petroleum daily by 2025.

Now that the Supreme Court has decided that there is no limit to political donations in the U.S., the money flows. In the past days, Romney received $10 million from oil and gas companies. For his part, the candidate said that if he is elected, he will end a century of state-controlled exploitation of hydrocarbons in public land. The subject will remain in the hands of local authorities who are more vulnerable to the pressures of large companies.

“Business as usual” or nothing new under the sun.