133
coupled with military support in pressuring uncooperative regional powers. From
their perspective, this is how oil prices had been maintained at a relatively constant
level. The report’s criticism of US policy mainly focused on the lack of precautions
implemented by friendly producers in the region maintaining by way of a lack of
investment in stocking surplus reservoirs. The result, it was surmised, would no
doubt be a shortage in oil production capacity in the event of unforeseen developments hitting supplies (Jaffe and Morse 2001:21).
Jaffe and Morse (2001:21) draws attention to the precarious status of the energy
sector in the twenty-first century. In our globalized era, Myres Jaff states, the markets are at severe risk of sudden crises, which would have a worldwide impact. Such
events would impact economies across the globe, including that of the US. At the
same time, there would be knock-on impacts in security and foreign policy.
The Strategic Energy Policy Task Force made it clear that in the near future, the
US would be faced with a serious threat due to its high dependence on the stability
of foreign suppliers and continued access. The task force went on to announce that
(Mahdi 2012:66):
Having reached peak oil, there are ever-increasing chances of an oil-supply crisis; such a crisis will be much more significant than those that have come before. It
is no longer reasonable to assume that oil countries will be able to supply oil, and in
terms of the US market it would be illogical to increase dependence on limited foreign sources.
National Energy Policy (NEP)
Bush announced the introduction of the National Energy Policy (NEP) on May 17,
2001. The president unveiled the plans at a high-tech energy generation plant in
Minnesota while speaking of the vital links between energy security and national
security:
Failure to take action will lead to negative impacts on the country. Heavy reliance
on foreign oil supply will leave energy security in the hands of countries who do not
have our best interests at heart. However, if we maintain our current lack of action
we will also be forced to rely on out-of-date plants and emergency generators,
which alongside being inefficient, will in turn harm the environment (Mahdi
2012:67).
As noted by Mahdi (2012:67), in Bush’s view, there are several steps to be taken
to avoid such things. Initially, demand must be reduced. To achieve this technology
much be subject to innovation and development. Following this, America should
look to expand its energy sources to renewables in addition to clean coal and nuclear
sources while applying infrastructure modernization (Mahdi 2012:67).
Despite a drastically changed international environment 6 years later, in 2007,
Bush delivered a speech about the economic and environmental importance of stable energy supplies, which while referencing political issues, shows that Bush’s
base concerns over energy altered little over the course of the administration:
George W. Bush Energy Policy
coupled with military support in pressuring uncooperative regional powers. From
their perspective, this is how oil prices had been maintained at a relatively constant
level. The report’s criticism of US policy mainly focused on the lack of precautions
implemented by friendly producers in the region maintaining by way of a lack of
investment in stocking surplus reservoirs. The result, it was surmised, would no
doubt be a shortage in oil production capacity in the event of unforeseen developments hitting supplies (Jaffe and Morse 2001:21).
Jaffe and Morse (2001:21) draws attention to the precarious status of the energy
sector in the twenty-first century. In our globalized era, Myres Jaff states, the markets are at severe risk of sudden crises, which would have a worldwide impact. Such
events would impact economies across the globe, including that of the US. At the
same time, there would be knock-on impacts in security and foreign policy.
The Strategic Energy Policy Task Force made it clear that in the near future, the
US would be faced with a serious threat due to its high dependence on the stability
of foreign suppliers and continued access. The task force went on to announce that
(Mahdi 2012:66):
Having reached peak oil, there are ever-increasing chances of an oil-supply crisis; such a crisis will be much more significant than those that have come before. It
is no longer reasonable to assume that oil countries will be able to supply oil, and in
terms of the US market it would be illogical to increase dependence on limited foreign sources.
National Energy Policy (NEP)
Bush announced the introduction of the National Energy Policy (NEP) on May 17,
2001. The president unveiled the plans at a high-tech energy generation plant in
Minnesota while speaking of the vital links between energy security and national
security:
Failure to take action will lead to negative impacts on the country. Heavy reliance
on foreign oil supply will leave energy security in the hands of countries who do not
have our best interests at heart. However, if we maintain our current lack of action
we will also be forced to rely on out-of-date plants and emergency generators,
which alongside being inefficient, will in turn harm the environment (Mahdi
2012:67).
As noted by Mahdi (2012:67), in Bush’s view, there are several steps to be taken
to avoid such things. Initially, demand must be reduced. To achieve this technology
much be subject to innovation and development. Following this, America should
look to expand its energy sources to renewables in addition to clean coal and nuclear
sources while applying infrastructure modernization (Mahdi 2012:67).
Despite a drastically changed international environment 6 years later, in 2007,
Bush delivered a speech about the economic and environmental importance of stable energy supplies, which while referencing political issues, shows that Bush’s
base concerns over energy altered little over the course of the administration:
George W. Bush Energy Policy