Student: Kelsey Kahn
Graduation date: May 2015
Type: Concentration (single major)
Date approved: November 2012
Summary
With industrialization, urbanization, and expansion across the globe, the world’s reliance on finite fuels is a growing concern due to the ever-increasing need for ever-dwindling resources (Lenczowski, 1975). Current energy processes have created a reality where one country’s decisions regarding energy policy can have potentially huge and lasting impacts on other nations and the globe. This concentration focuses on policy debates and decisions that are made in economically advanced fossil fuel producing and consuming countries. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Canada, The United States, Russia, Australia and Venezuela are the top producers of oil, coal, and natural gas in the world and have booming economies surrounding the supply of these and other carbon-based fuels (U.S. Energy, 2012 B). The accessibility of fossil fuels in these countries and the financial systems that surround the production of energy from these sources make the choice to transition from carbon-based fuels to non-carbon based fuels (or “alternative energy”) a complex and involved decision (Liuksila, 1994). While I will account for the policy surrounding alternative energy innovation in the above countries, I have taken particular interest in the United States. Since the United States makes up less than five percent of the world’s population but uses about twenty percent of the world’s energy and emits almost the same percentage of the total carbon dioxide, it is clear that its energy policy has a significant impact on other countries and the world’s energy market as a whole (U.S. Energy, 2012 A). Additionally, the country has one of the world’s largest economies and an especially diverse and vast amount of fossil fuels at its disposal including, coal, natural gas, and oil. The relevance of energy policy to environmental studies is illustrated in the connection to the larger themes of technological advancement, international economic interests in energy, global resource availability, the politics of energy innovation, and affects of energy production and use on climate change.
There are a multitude of variables that play a part in the policy decisions of economically advanced carbon-based fuel producing countries. For example, when looking at Australia’s dependence on coal as an export and major domestic power source, the economic gains of exporting coal need to be assessed along with the available infrastructure in Australia for coal production, and the abundance of resource itself. Economic structure needs to be noted when equating nations like Venezuela, where state-owned companies control the oil sectors, to countries like the United States, where privately owned companies dominate the market (Davis 2003). Furthermore, political variables need to be taken into account like the type of government in place, the way that policy is enacted, and the influences that interest groups have. In countries like the United States where legislatures may be swayed by constituents, environmentally minded non-governmental organizations, or energy focused companies, policy will likely differ compared to the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia where national elections do not take place and oil production is controlled by the government managed national oil company, Saudi Aramco (Akhonbay, 2012). This concentration’s situation in economically advanced countries around the world will provide the foundation that will eventually support a focus on the United States as a major actor in global energy production and consumption.
On the surface, it seems as though integrating relevant scientific information into environmental actions, whether they be at the local, state, or federal level, is a no-brainer. A respected scientist will do research, be peer reviewed, published in a journal, the media will report findings to the public, and scientists’ research will then be drawn from to inform policy, negotiations, and the work of environmental activists. The truth is that the relationships between scientists, the media, legislatures, and the public are anything but straightforward and traceable. A host of economic, moral, and theoretical forces transform science put out by researchers and even affect how and what scientists study in the first place. This framework for this transformation is less like a flowchart and more like a meshwork.
In the realm of global climate change, reliable, factual science is a significant component in creating and implementing mitigation and adaptation techniques, but what happens when facts are no longer absolutely fact and the truth starts to look more and more subjective (Moss et al. 2013)? Policy makers and negotiators look for straightforward tried and true information to base their decisions off of but the scientific process, and for that matter those who take part in it, are not perfect. 1 + 1 = 2, except in some situations when it doesn’t. A significant portion of general public puts their trust in science and the epistemic community of scientists but that trust may sometimes be too strong. This is not necessarily the fault of scientists but instead a flaw in the system as a whole. When influential journals like On Being a Scientist only address “Responsible conduct in research” and fail to grapple with the implications of performing that research and its outcomes, problems are bound to arise.
References
Akhonbay, Hisham. 2012. Saudi Arabia’s Energy Policy: A Disciplined Approach to Forward-Looking Policy Making. Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Davis, Jeffrey M., and International Monetary Fund. 2003. Fiscal Policy Formulation and Implementation in Oil-Producing Countries. International Monetary Fund.
Moss, R. H., G. A. Meehl, M. C. Lemos, J. B. Smith, J. R. Arnold, J. C. Arnott, D. Behar, et al. 2013. “Hell and High Water: Practice-Relevant Adaptation.” Science 342 (6159) (November 8): 696–698. doi:10.1126/science.1239569.
Lenczowski, George. 1975. “The Oil-Producing Countries.” Daedalus 104 (4) (October 1): 59–72. doi:10.2307/20024362.
Liuksila, Claire, Alejandro García, and Sheila Bassett. 1994. “Fiscal Policy Sustainability in Oil-Producing Countries.” SSRN eLibrary (November). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=883895.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy. 2012 A. Annual Energy Review 2011. Department of Energy Annual Report. Annual Energy Review. United States of America: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. 2012 B. Fossil Fuel Production: 1980-Current Year. Numerical. International Energy Statistics. Washington D.C.: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1.
Additional References
Beard, Daniel P. 1975. “United States Environmental Legislation and Energy Resources: A Review.” Geographical Review 65 (2) (April 1): 229–244. doi:10.2307/213975.
Black, Brian, and Richard Flarend. 2010. Alternative energy. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=554187.
Chapman, Duane. 1983. Energy resources and energy corporations. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Davis, David Howard. 1993. Energy politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Simon, Christopher A. 2007. Alternative energy : political, economic, and social feasibility. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Questions
- Descriptive: What are the political and economic factors that have shaped and currently reinforce the present-day use of energy sources in economically advanced fossil fuel producing countries? (Ontology) What are the facts for that group and who reports the information? How in particular do the politics of energy innovation play out in the US, which has one of the world’s largest economy and an especially diverse and vast amount of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil)? How do the institutions of science (who found/manufactured the facts that these policies are based on) and outside parties respond to challenges and multiple interpretations of that fact? (Politics)
- Explanatory: What are the external interest groups or lobbies that have an effect on the decisions of policy makers regarding energy policy? Are some more powerful than others? Why? How have they changed through time? What frames are being used by the group/institution/individual? (Epistemology)
- Evaluative: How does the interplay between different interest groups and policy makers encourage or stifle energy innovation? Who benefits and in what way from the resulting policy decisions? What makes these policy decisions justifiable? (Ethics)
Concentration courses
- ENVS 499 (Deconstructing Hydroelectric Power: Debates over Dam Removal in the Pacific Northwest, 4 credits), fall 2013 This independent study will give me a chance to see what impact political parties and interest groups have on the environmental policy creation process and how much these groups can sway lawmakers. It will be very helpful when answering the question of what political economic forces are reinforcing the use of specific energy sources.
- ENVS 499 (Climate Change Law Independent Study, 4 credits), spring 2014 This course will provide a general introduction to environmental law and policy, which are who topics that I have not had a previous chance to learn about. It will help me see how environmental law is conceived and written and give me an idea about how lawmakers decide what to put into energy legislation and how it will be perceived and put into practice.
- POLS 253 (Public Policy, 4 credits), spring 2013 Public policy will offer an in depth analysis of how public policy works in the United States and what the key role of policy makers actually is. This will help me to analyze what effects outside forces have on policy makers when they are choosing what goes into legislation.
- GEO 280 (Fundamentals of Hydrology, 4 credits):, fall 2013 This class will give me background in the hydrological sciences so that I can be better informed when assessing the benefits of alternative energies like hydroelectric power. The prerequisite for the course (GEO 150: Environmental Geology) will also help provide me with some foundation knowledge necessary to explore my interests.
Arts and humanities courses
- HIST 261 (Global Environmental History, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.