|
奥巴马(Obama)总统已经上路了。 |
他已完成对俄克拉荷马、内华达、俄亥俄和新墨西哥4个州的访问，这4个州对于美国的能源生产至关重要。此次访问的时机选择很恰当—眼下人们对油价上涨的担忧正重新燃起。他对地点的选择也很高明，因为它显示出奥巴马非常清楚，美国需要全面的能源政策。
作为克林顿(Clinton)政府的能源部长，我已经意识到，这个国家需要提高所有类型能源的产量。奥巴马带领我们走上这条路是正确的，但美国国会让他的任务变得富有挑战性，如果不是不可能的话。关于“能源独立”达成了很多口头上的一致，但当涉及到具体问题时——管道、钻探、能效标准以及可再生能源税收政策——达成共识的可能性则显得渺茫。
一方鼓吹清洁能源的好处，为可再生能源呼吁政府支持——联邦补贴、税收抵免和严格的空气质量标准以及对燃料经济性的监管。另一方则用同样激烈的论调，支持核电站和不受限制的石油和天然气生产，反对能效标准和空气质量监管，并削减对清洁能源技术的投资。
对于共和党和民主党而言，问题是这些根深蒂固的立场是否会使两党一致同意的最终目标——能源独立和长期可持续经济增长——延迟实现。
鉴于现有资源的巨大规模，两党应该有足够多的机会找到共同点。
甚至连提议中的清洁能源标准(Clean Energy Standard)的民主党草拟者都预测，到2035年，煤炭发电将占到美国总发电量的五分之一。天然气、核能和可再生能源将包揽剩下的份额。没有一种能源会占据主导地位。
即使钻探技术的进步开辟了新的油气来源，我们也无法仅仅通过钻探来实现能源独立。无党派倾向的美国能源情报署(Energy Information Administration)称，到2035年，美国和加拿大的石油日产量总和将达到1200万桶。产量的增加仅能覆盖当前石油消费的三分之二。
天然气的形势略好一些，美国能源情报署预测，美国将在2021年成为天然气净出口国。天然气提供了一种相对清洁且不那么昂贵的选择，它将在我们的整个能源组合中发挥更大作用。但它仍属于一种不可再生资源，容易受到国际大宗商品市场波动的影响，而且其环境成本可能很高。
尽管美国现在享受着10多年来最低的天然气价格，但我们忘记了，就在2008年，天然气价格曾是目前的4倍。我们不能让我们对宾夕法尼亚、北达科他和其他地区储量的乐观情绪，阻止我们推动能源供应多样化、清洁化的努力。
新兴经济体的需求将继续推动市场对有限能源的需求演变。为了防范地缘政治紧张引发的供应中断和美国控制范围之外的价格波动，美国能源组合的多样化至关重要。尽管天然气储量现在十分充沛，但美国拥有的其他资源——太阳能、风能、地热——实际上储量无限。
全球正在关注美国，而此刻，为了制订出多样化且可持续的能源政策，美国的政治领导人步履维艰。在此次访问中，奥巴马打出“全面”(all of the above)的口号，来描述其能源政策。这可能是一种将不同愿景融合在一起的真正努力。但问题变得如此政治化，这使达成共识变得不太可能，特别是在动荡的大选之年。
在完成访问后，对于奥巴马而言，理想的策略是与国会领导人共同打造一项折衷法案。不幸的是，共和党人似乎更致力于让奥巴马失败，而不是就一个具有国家重要性的问题进行合作。
党派倾向和辩论是我们的政治遗产中非常重要的一部分，但现在我们必须克服分歧，为国家的最高利益服务。实施“全面”国家能源政策的时刻无疑已经到来。
本文作者曾担任美国能源部长、新墨西哥州州长和美国驻联合国(UN)大使。
译者/梁艳裳
|
President Obama is on the road. |
Today is the second day of his tour of four states – Oklahoma, Nevada, Ohio and New Mexico – crucial to US energy production. His journey is well timed, coming amid renewed fears of rising oil prices. His choice of locations is smart, too, for it shows the president is well aware that we need a comprehensive approach to US energy.
As energy secretary in the Clinton administration, I came to realise this country needs to promote all types of energy production. Mr Obama is right to put us on this course but the US Congress makes his mission challenging, if not impossible. There is plenty of rhetorical agreement about “energy independence” but when it comes to the specifics – pipelines, drilling, efficiency standards and renewable energy tax policies – consensus is elusive.
One side touts the benefits of clean energy, calling for government support – federal subsidies, tax credits and stringent air quality, and fuel economy regulations – for renewable sources. The other takes an equally strident approach in favour of nuclear plants, unrestricted oil and gas production, opposition to efficiency standards and air quality regulations, and cutting investments in clean energy technology.
The question for both Republicans and Democrats is whether such entrenched positions will prolong achievement of the ultimate goal that both sides agree on – energy independence and sustainable economic growth in the long term.
There ought to be sufficient opportunities, given the vast resources that are available, to find common ground.
Even the Democratic drafters of a proposed Clean Energy Standard envisioned that coal would represent up to a fifth of total electricity production in 2035. Natural gas, nuclear and renewable energy sources would make up the rest. No one source would dominate.
Even as advances in drilling techniques open up new sources of oil and gas, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. Combined US and Canadian oil production will reach 12m domestic barrels a day by 2035, according to the non-partisan Energy Information Administration. This increase in production would still cover only two-thirds of our current oil consumption.
The situation for natural gas is slightly better, with the EIA predicting the US will become a net natural gas exporter by 2021. Natural gas provides a relatively clean and inexpensive option, and it will play a larger role in our overall energy mix. But it is still an exhaustible resource, subject to the whims of international commodity markets, and carries potentially high environmental costs.
While the US is currently enjoying the lowest natural gas prices in more than a decade, we forget that as recently as 2008, prices were four times as high as they are today. We cannot let our optimism about reserves in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and elsewhere stop efforts to diversify and clean our energy supply.
The evolving demand for finite resources will continue to be driven by the needs of emerging economies. Diversification of America’s energy mix will be essential to hedge against supply disruptions caused by geopolitical tension as well as price fluctuations beyond US control. And while natural gas is abundant today, other resources with which America is blessed – sun, wind, the heat under the ground – are effectively infinite.
The world is watching the US as its political leaders struggle to develop a diversified and sustainable energy policy. On his trip, the president is touting the slogan “all of the above” to describe his energy policy. It may be a genuine effort to bring together competing visions. But the issue is so politicised that reaching a consensus is unlikely, especially in a volatile election year.
When he returns, the ideal approach for the president would be to work out a compromise bill with Congressional leaders. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem more committed to having President Obama fail than co-operating on an issue of national importance.
Partisanship and discourse are very much a part of our political heritage but there comes a time when we must rise above our differences and serve the best interest of our nation. That time has certainly arrived on enacting an “all of the above” national energy policy.
The writer is a former US energy secretary, governor of New Mexico and US ambassador to the UN
