What to Expect in Energy Policy

By Tyler Zhu

Introduction
With the Donald Trump administration set to come into office in a few weeks, and the
newly elected Congress set to convene on January 3rd, a new agenda for the direction of our
country is set to come into action. So today, I want to analyze what this agenda appears to be,
specifically on the issue of energy policy.
Research from many scientific organizations, like NASA, suggest that climate change is
an extremely pressing and urgent situation that needs to be addressed in the form of proactive
measures like transforming Americas energy industry. However, during his campaign, Trump
consistently proclaimed his lack of belief in the prospects of climate change, a stance that raised
alarm bells from many environmental activists. This position has also been brought back into the
spotlight with Trumps recent transition leaders cabinet appointments. Among these
controversial picks include the choice of Myron Ebell, a climate change skeptic, to lead the
transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency1 . Another relevant choice was the
appointment of former Texas Governor Rick Perry, also a climate change skeptic, for Secretary
of Energy2. These choices seem to back up Trumps campaign stance of climate change being a
hoax, and falls relatively in line with the stance of the GOP, now controls both houses of
Congress and has the President. It is important that there has been heavy consideration of the
implications of Trumps picks, as Energy policy is an extremely essential issue, and the choices
that our government makes in the coming years will matter. The way we go about in addressing
this policy area can not online have a crucial effect on the state of our planets environment, but
it will also affect our economy depending on what the government chooses to do in regards to
the fossil fuel industry or the growing clean energy industry.
Because of the potential impact that this issue has on our economy and our world, I think
its important that people understand it. The purpose of this article is to help provide important
information for people to consider, like the circumstances regarding the situation with the

Bravender, Robin, and ClimateWire. "Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA
Transition." Scientific American. N.p., 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

Magill, Bobby, and Climate Central. "Rick Perry Tapped to Run the Energy Agency He Once
Vowed to Kill." Scientific American. N.p., 14 Dec. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

climate at this time, what the Democrats policy plan for addressing this is, what the
Republicans policy plan is, and what the incoming Trump Administrations plan and action for
the issue will be.

The Situation
Most importantly, I feel like it is probably necessary to go over what the situation on
climate change is like, according to the research of the scientific community. A Gallup3 poll in
2016 found that 64 percent of Americans worry about global warming, 36 percent who dont.
The majority of Americans do believe in and worry about global warming, but that still seems to
be enough dissent that I think it will be useful to talk about some of the scientific communitys
findings.
NASA has done a lot of research on the issue of climate change, and they have posted
and explained a lot of their findings and analyses. The basis of climate change is on the concept
of greenhouse gases. More carbon dioxide in the air affects the atmosphere, and leads to heat
being trapped in the Earth. Because of carbon dioxides role in affecting temperature, the huge
increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have impacted the state of our environment.

Gallup, Inc. "U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High." Gallup.com. N.p., 16
Mar. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

This graph shows the amount of carbon dioxide is in the air, and NASAs point in
looking at this is to point out that the absurd rate at which carbon dioxide has increased since the
Industrial Revolution is not normal to any sort of cycle or pattern, meaning that this particular
increase is not a natural increase that would just go back down like all the years in the past, but a
human-induced scenario. As further evidence, NASA also cites a variety of trends in the global
environment due to these rises in carbon dioxide. Among these trends include rise in sea levels,
rise in global temperature, warming oceans, ocean acidification, and even a greater abundance of
extreme weather events. These are all current effects of climate change, and these effects are
bound to get more extreme as the temperature continues to rise at its current rate. These effects
of droughts, heatwaves, more intense hurricanes, and rising sea-levels all have huge potential
consequences on not just animal environments but even human lives. For instance, the global sea
level has risen by 8 inches since 1880, and is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100. This
would mean increase in flooding in coastal congregations, and as we know, a large portion of the
human population are concentrated in cities on coasts. This prospect opens up the scenario of
millions of people being displaced from their homes and becoming something equivalent to a
climate refugee.

Not only that, but climate change is also negatively affecting economies in the world. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) did a research study as well,
and based on estimates, project that if no action is taken, the impact of climate change on global
GDP can be at around 1.0% to 3.3% by 20604 due to the disruptions that climate change would
have on things like trade, agriculture, transportation infrastructure, energy production, and
tourism. All of these disruptions would accumulate to a weaker economy.
There is a very strong consensus among the scientific community of the existence of
man-made climate change and the danger that it poses to the worlds environment and order in
the future. The community agrees that there needs to be action taken in terms of energy policy in
order to address the threat of climate change, so lets now go look at the actions that our two
parties in the American government intend to take on this issue.

The Democrats
To start off, it is relevant to know that it is somewhat hard to encapsulate a partys
complete and absolute stance on an issue as broad as energy policy, due to the varying levels of
urgency dedicated by each individual party member and party congressman. Luckily, with 2016
being an election year, both sides have a party platform summarizing the general stance on each
issue. Due to the nature of trying to reach out to all of the partys base during campaign season,
the party platform isnt completely in line with the policies the parties actually push for, but an
analysis of Democrat and Republican platforms from 1980 to 2004 found that Democrats and
Republicans voted for their respective platform positions 82 percent of the time, so I think
looking at each partys most recent platform on energy is a good idea.
Ill start with the Democrats, seeing as Barack Obama, a Democrat, has been in power, so
most of the recent landmark climate policies have adhered to the Democrats agenda. Therefore,
Ill lay out the Democrats stance on energy first, and then Ill talk about the Republicans
objections to the climate policies that the Democrats have implemented. So heres an excerpt
from the Party Platform on Building a Clean Economy in the partys website5:

"The Economic Consequences of Climate Change | OECD READ edition." OECD iLibrary.
N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

"Democrats.org." Democrats.org. N.p., 21 July 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources
within a decade, with half a billion solar panels installed within four years and enough
renewable energy to power every home in the country. We will cut energy waste in American
homes, schools, hospitals, and offices through energy efficient improvements; modernize our
electric grid; and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
These efforts will create millions of new jobs and save families and businesses money on their
monthly energy bills. We will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption
through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships,
and trucks. We will make new investments in public transportation and build bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure across our urban and suburban areas. Democrats believe the tax code
must reflect our commitment to a clean energy future by eliminating special tax breaks and
subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy
efficiency and clean energy.
To summarize, the Democrats are very committed to the issue of climate change, and
have even set up a goal for the country that the party hopes to achieve within a decade. Part of
implementing this very rigid transitional plan involves diverting tax incentives and subsidies
from the current fossil fuel companies towards the growing clean energy industry (some
Democrats have proposed even placing a carbon tax, or a tax on fossil fuel companies, which
would further restrict fossil fuel companies and incentivize lowering emission rates more
quickly.
Under President Barack Obama, several measures regarding climate change and energy
have occurred in recent years. The Clean Power Plan, proposed by the Environmental Protection
Agency, was unveiled in June 2015. The Clean Power Plan is a federal energy policy plan that
set national limits on carbon pollution from power plants6 , with the purpose of the plan being to
set a path for reducing carbon emissions and transitioning towards a clean energy economy.
Obama also had the U.S. join the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which went into effect in
2016. The Agreement set that standards and goals that all the countries would strive for, like

Https://www.facebook.com/EnvDefenseFund/. "A new national Clean Power Plan."

Environmental Defense Fund. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

aiming to implement policies to keep the global average temperature to only 1.5 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels, as 2 degrees would become extremely dangerous. It is the first
comprehensive international climate agreement.
The Democrats policy stances and actions seem to indicate a strong devotion to adapting
climate-friendly policies, and doing so at a relatively rigid and urgent pace. Because part of these
policies have included stances that would almost certainly weaken the fossil fuel industry, the
Democrats have received criticism for advocating for policies that involve too much federal
intervention and regulation that will ultimately hinder the growth and capabilities of the
economy. Their counterargument to this point is that while the big fossil fuel industries would
inevitably have to fall out of favor, the renewable energy industries have plenty of potential to
become incredibly strong industries that bring a lot of economic profit and jobs while still
keeping the environment safe. The Department of Energy has done research, and it has found
great trends for renewable energy sources. It has found that while the cumulative capacity (the
amount of energy the source is producing) of wind and solar have risen, costs for both sources
have progressively gone down7.
Wind:

Solar:
7

"6 Charts that Will Make You Optimistic About America's Clean Energy Future." Energy.gov.
N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

These trends in the renewable energy are what has given the Democrats confidence in
going full steam ahead in making a swift and urgent transition from fossil fuel energy to
renewable energy. As each of these industries increase their capacity, lower costs, and become
an all-around more viable industry for consumers, the Democrats will continue to insist that
transforming Americas energy industries will keep the economy as strong as ever while also
saving the environment.

The Republicans
The policy position of the Republicans on energy is especially important now that they
are in control of the government. While the Democratic Partys energy policy places great
emphasis on the need to take swift and efficient action to transform our energy industry into one
that serves the interests of the environment, the Republicans energy policy places greater
emphasis on the need to make sure that the economy continues to function smoothly without
going through a potential setback that a swift transition away from the fossil fuel industry poses.
The Center for American Progress Action Fund checked, and there 144 members in the House of
Representatives and 38 members in the Senate who dont believe in climate change, most of
whom are Republicans. This reinforces the notion that the Republicans energy policy is less

about the environment and more about economic success. So lets look at the official energy
platform of the Republican Party8:
Planning for our energy future requires us to first determine what resources we have in
reserve. Thirty years ago, the worlds estimated reserves of oil were 645 billion barrels. Today,
that figure is 1.65 trillion barrels. The more we know what we will have in the future, the better
we can decide how to use it. That is why we support the opening of public lands and the outer
continental shelf to exploration and responsible production, even if these resources will not be
immediately developed. Because we believe states can best promote economic growth while
protecting the environment, Congress should give authority to state regulators to manage energy
resources on federally controlled public lands within their respective borders.
The Party platform does address the environment, showcasing the Partys stance that
America can continue to expand extractions of coal and other fossil fuel resources to help
promote economic growth and energy independency/stability while still finding a way to protect
the environment. Essentially, the Republicans believe in an all-inclusive energy policy where if
the resource is available, we should take advantage of using it so that we can create jobs, grow
the economy, and put an end to Americas dangerous dependence on getting oil from foreign
nations. This can be termed as the All of the Above Energy Approach9.
As for what the Republicans intend on doing in energy policy, now that they hold the
presidency and both of the Congressional Houses, they intend to pull back on a lot of the
different energy policy initiatives that Obama and the Democrats implemented. As stated in their
platform, the Republicans do not support the federal governments role in placing excessive
regulations on energy industries and restricting the growth of the economy, believing instead that
the management of energy resources should by the state regulators authority. Therefore, the
Republicans oppose the Clean Power Plan, and its unsure whether or not the policy will persist
under Trump10.

8
9

"The 2016 Republican Party Platform." GOP. N.p., 18 July 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
"All-of-the-Above Energy Approach." House Committee on Natural Resources. N.p., n.d.
Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

10

Profeta, Tim. "Fate of the Clean Power Plan Remains Uncertain." National Geographic
Society (blogs). N.p., 05 Jan. 2017. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

At the heart of their position, the Republicans believe that the choices being made on the
usage of energy resources should be predicated on whether or not it is a rational choice in the
basis of a free market economy. Hence, this means that they oppose regulations like placing a
carbon emissions limit or a carbon tax because those measures would hinder the fossil fuel
industry, and thus interfere in the economy. The NY Times wrote an article about the drop in oil
prices, predicating the drop to the increase in supply, with the US having doubled domestic
production over the last couple of years11 .

The drop in oil prices shown here is part of what exemplifies the Republicans purpose
and goal when it comes to energy policy. The case for them here is that taking advantage of
extracting available oil resources lead to the lowering of oil prices for consumers, thus
showcasing the forces of the economy at work. Measures like the Carbon Power Plan and the
Paris Climate Agreement have aims of regulation of oil supply, which presumably would not
allow the economy to bring about cheap oil prices due to supply and demand being lowered in
scenarios under the regulatory policies. Because of that, the Republicans argue in their platform
that Americans would suffer, as peoples already existing dependence on oil for energy would
mean that the Democrats war on coal would cause less mobility in employment, and higher
food prices.

11

Krauss, Clifford. "Oil Prices: Whats Behind the Volatility? Simple Economics." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 06 Jan. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

10

Ultimately, because a lot of the Republicans in Congress, arguably misguidedly, do not

believe in the dangers of climate change, their stance on energy policy is predicated on the
rationale of allowing energy choices to be made based on effects of the economy. Hence, they
see the best approach to be the one where we extract as much of any kind of energy resource as
possible because of the positive effect that greater supply would have prices for all of us energy
consumers.

Conclusion
Ultimately, how you judge your stance on the issue of energy policy depends on how you
prioritize the factors of the environment and the economy. While I personally believe it is hard to
plausibly argue that man-induced climate change isnt happening, the degree of urgency at which
we go towards addressing the issue is certainly up for debate. The level of urgency that you feel
about climate change will also affect the kind of action you would prefer to have energy policy
for the issue be carried out. In general though, the purpose of this report was to be able to inform
people on the general situation and stances of the energy debate, and then allow them to
informatively come to a conclusion based on how they measure the priorities I referred to. The
policy of this country for our energy priorities is too important for people to not be informed and
involved in the type of action that is to be taken.

11

Works Cited List

1. Bravender, Robin, and ClimateWire. "Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA
Transition." Scientific American. N.p., 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017
2. Magill, Bobby, and Climate Central. "Rick Perry Tapped to Run the Energy Agency He Once
Vowed to Kill." Scientific American. N.p., 14 Dec. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
3. Gallup, Inc. "U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High." Gallup.com. N.p., 16
Mar. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
4. "The Economic Consequences of Climate Change | OECD READ edition." OECD iLibrary.
N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
5. "Democrats.org." Democrats.org. N.p., 21 July 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
6. Https://www.facebook.com/EnvDefenseFund/. "A new national Clean Power Plan."
Environmental Defense Fund. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
7. "6 Charts that Will Make You Optimistic About America's Clean Energy Future." Energy.gov.
N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
8. "The 2016 Republican Party Platform." GOP. N.p., 18 July 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
9. "All-of-the-Above Energy Approach." House Committee on Natural Resources. N.p., n.d.
Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
10. Profeta, Tim. "Fate of the Clean Power Plan Remains Uncertain." National Geographic
Society (blogs). N.p., 05 Jan. 2017. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.
12

11. Krauss, Clifford. "Oil Prices: Whats Behind the Volatility? Simple Economics." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 06 Jan. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

13