179
Obama, coming to power in January 2009, emphasized two desires: To reinstate
the image of America tarnished as a result of the administration of George W. Bush,
and reestablish the country’s economic viability following the 2008 Financial Crisis.
It was observed from early on in his administration that the US would likely play a
lesser role in foreign nations’ internal affairs. In order to thaw relations with major
powers such as Russia and China, the US made a strategic pivot toward Asia, Central
to foreign policy came multilateral partnerships with European allies, a disengagement from national building and the exportation of democracy in the Middle East,
and in its place, a focus on environmental energies, nuclear and WMD disarmament, and attempts to bring long-term enemies such as Cuba and Iran into the liberal
world order in order to bolster the security of the US and its allies (www.karar.
com 2017).
Energy security and management of potential causes of energy-related conflict
were also high on the Obama Administration’s foreign policy priorities, Donilon’s
speech can be identified in four major ways as: this sentence does not make sense.
You will have to fix it to be clear.
Firstly, “leading at home”: In order to develop domestic energy security, the
Administration has a multipart strategy. This includes investment in clean energy,
R&D, and renewables alongside rigid fuel standards for light vehicles. Meanwhile,
the Administration also encouraged an increase in domestic oil and gas production.
Secondly, “managing potential causes of energy-related conflict”: The
Administration drew particular attention to the South and East China are and the
Arctic as regions which are, or could be, sources of tensions.
Thirdly, “building a diplomatic, regulatory, and technical capacity to help other
nations increase energy supply, build capacity and strengthen the institutions that
enable international cooperation”: The US, along with other nations, has regulatory
and technical agreements on unconventional energy sources with countries such as
Poland, Ukraine, Jordan, China, Chile, and Mexico.
Fourth, “working with other nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”:
Obama’s energy agenda was closely linked to the administration’s climate agenda
as it saw global environmental change as a threat. The administration developed the
Bureau of Energy Resources in 2011 as part of the State Department. The bureau
was tasked with energy diplomacy as part of aims to develop climate protection
both at home and abroad (Howald et al. 2014:17–18).
This report indicates that the Obama Administration did not see the energy boom
and shale gas revolution as game changers in foreign policy priorities—rather, that
other countries reacted to those changes, in turn, forcing Washington to react. The
energy boom helped the US to increase self-sufficiency, allowing it greater mobility
in pursuit of its foreign policy goals vis-à-vis Russia and Iran in light of the annexation of Crimea and the nuclear program, respectively (Howald et al. 2014:30).
According to Peter Zeuhan, “The Caspian only matters to the US in a world
where the United States both wants to be internationally engaged and is a massive
energy importer. Geopolitically, the Americans are not simply withdrawing from
the Caspian, but Europe and Asia as well. This isn’t a Trump thing, but simply the
culmination of a generation-long trend of re-assigning strategic priorities in the
US Energy Policy and Shale Gas Revolution
Obama, coming to power in January 2009, emphasized two desires: To reinstate
the image of America tarnished as a result of the administration of George W. Bush,
and reestablish the country’s economic viability following the 2008 Financial Crisis.
It was observed from early on in his administration that the US would likely play a
lesser role in foreign nations’ internal affairs. In order to thaw relations with major
powers such as Russia and China, the US made a strategic pivot toward Asia, Central
to foreign policy came multilateral partnerships with European allies, a disengagement from national building and the exportation of democracy in the Middle East,
and in its place, a focus on environmental energies, nuclear and WMD disarmament, and attempts to bring long-term enemies such as Cuba and Iran into the liberal
world order in order to bolster the security of the US and its allies (www.karar.
com 2017).
Energy security and management of potential causes of energy-related conflict
were also high on the Obama Administration’s foreign policy priorities, Donilon’s
speech can be identified in four major ways as: this sentence does not make sense.
You will have to fix it to be clear.
Firstly, “leading at home”: In order to develop domestic energy security, the
Administration has a multipart strategy. This includes investment in clean energy,
R&D, and renewables alongside rigid fuel standards for light vehicles. Meanwhile,
the Administration also encouraged an increase in domestic oil and gas production.
Secondly, “managing potential causes of energy-related conflict”: The
Administration drew particular attention to the South and East China are and the
Arctic as regions which are, or could be, sources of tensions.
Thirdly, “building a diplomatic, regulatory, and technical capacity to help other
nations increase energy supply, build capacity and strengthen the institutions that
enable international cooperation”: The US, along with other nations, has regulatory
and technical agreements on unconventional energy sources with countries such as
Poland, Ukraine, Jordan, China, Chile, and Mexico.
Fourth, “working with other nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”:
Obama’s energy agenda was closely linked to the administration’s climate agenda
as it saw global environmental change as a threat. The administration developed the
Bureau of Energy Resources in 2011 as part of the State Department. The bureau
was tasked with energy diplomacy as part of aims to develop climate protection
both at home and abroad (Howald et al. 2014:17–18).
This report indicates that the Obama Administration did not see the energy boom
and shale gas revolution as game changers in foreign policy priorities—rather, that
other countries reacted to those changes, in turn, forcing Washington to react. The
energy boom helped the US to increase self-sufficiency, allowing it greater mobility
in pursuit of its foreign policy goals vis-à-vis Russia and Iran in light of the annexation of Crimea and the nuclear program, respectively (Howald et al. 2014:30).
According to Peter Zeuhan, “The Caspian only matters to the US in a world
where the United States both wants to be internationally engaged and is a massive
energy importer. Geopolitically, the Americans are not simply withdrawing from
the Caspian, but Europe and Asia as well. This isn’t a Trump thing, but simply the
culmination of a generation-long trend of re-assigning strategic priorities in the
US Energy Policy and Shale Gas Revolution