Restructuring Global Leadership: US Energy Politics, by Secretary Rick Perry
This blog is based on the White House Briefing on June/27/2017
Sit in Chiang Mai, hear from Washington. This morning it took me several hours watching a June/27/2017 Press Briefing from the White House, Washington, on the issue of energy politics in Trump administration. The press briefing was carried out by US Energy Secretary, Rick Perry, the former Texas governor during 2000 to 2015. Questions have been asked to Secretary Perry with thematic reference to global leadership in energy politics, environmental impacts and employments—particularly the feasibility of the scheme.
Personally speaking, I understand that America under Trump administration is opening a new chapter for utilizing its abundant energy resources as a vehicle for global leadership in the wake of opponents particularly China and Russia. Trump administration argues that it is time to restructure US position in the world leadership system in which superpowers utilize resources (i.e. coal, natural gas, and nuclear power) as weapons to upgrade their global leadership status.
Therefore, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry, in the name of Trump Government, believes that US technological advances and progressive innovation will make US energy politics unique in the sense of “clean” energy development. How clean and possible the scheme is remains unquestionable. More details about the Press Briefing follow.
When asked by the first question on how to fill up gap of nuclear industry inactivity that America has missed for 3 decades, the Secretary Perry lays out his concerns over challenges in terms of re-regulation over the nuclear-related industries—for instance, Yocca Mountain nuclear waste disposal. Yet, his strong belief is that America deserves a chance to become “great again” by a means of energy reinforcement facilitated by advanced technologies which allow America to enjoy ‘so-called’ clean energy with zero emission. He infers that what makes America different from other energy giants like China and Russia is its environmentally friendly principle of clean energy. But it is too from reality since well-protecting technology is only in optimism.
Another sensitive question was asked to seek his opinion whether climate change is a hoax and to what extend human activities contribute to it. In response, the Secretary Perry calls for an ‘intellectual conversation’ by which he means a dialogue involving such various parties as scientists, politicians in all parties to talk on “what to do about it” [climate change] and what are actual human activities leading to the ruins. Personally and initially, my jaw drops as hearing this since it sounds to me that he has uncertainties about man-made damages on environment. Nonetheless, I guess that what he wants is constructive conversation especially between US political parties in order to reach plural consensus, rather than hiding in the shadow blaming each other. That makes sense.
The following question relates to international relation between US and India within the themes of energy. With no hiccup, the Secretary optimistically draws a picture of intimate bilateral relations between the two countries glued by energy deals and cooperation.
With concerns on security of the electrical grid and safety, Rick Perry assures that US Department of Energy (DEO) has National Lab with high capacity to test infection over the grid. No only physical threat but also ‘cyber’ threat needs to be addressed to make sure that nothing comes to harden the electrical grid. He boastfully admits that they could protect grid security from cyber virus. It seems to me as a paradox of US technology where it has been claiming Russian cyber-attack during 2016 US election on one side while on the other side Rick Perry boastfully ensues US has great technology to prevent such the attack to the energy grid. I may need further track.
It is worth noting that when asked about the future of energy price, the Secretary does not give a comprehensive response. Just, ‘I am not in the business of trying to tell people what’s going to happen in gas prices…’, he says. Instead he inserts a policy of Trump administration which aims at diversifying energy portfolios for making balance in energy market.
With regards to environmental impacts, many questions have been asked, firstly, on the possibility of better negotiation between Washington with Paris Agreement members. The response is that even inside the White House there has not been anyone talking about such the negotiation, which means that is barely possible for Trump administration to make it green.
I nodded for this question as well as response by the Secretary: “Given the fact that coal is being warned by many countries, how to make coal industry clean?” If I were the Secretary I would not know what to sat but ‘I don’t know’. Yet he gives an acceptable but invisibly overwhelming remark. He quotes, “We haven’t figures out a clean use of coal yet from the stand point… The coal is the root source of rare earth minerals and if we hadn’t done this work on clean coal technology we would not have realized that there are ways we can extract the rare earth minerals out of the coal… I asked people to be open-minded about innovation.” [29-30:15 min]. Rick Perry further implies progressivism in technology by giving an example of innovation of gas and oil initially derived from ‘ancient’ peak oil. My personal comment to this is that today people are living in pluralism of fears where they are threatened by things, one of which environmental issue. How could possibly they open their mind and keep calm for invisible technology. Fears and danger of coal is the fact. Technology is futuristic.
Another question touches my attention. It asks the Secretary about EMP attack understood as burst of electromagnetic radiation. The question deserves a great comprehensive long answer, but Rick Perry only gives a short one saying that US National Lap is looking for all options. Nothing else is added.
From financial perspective, I do appreciate the next question on whether Trump administration is trying to block efforts by foreign companies which come to purchase US nuclear companies under bankrupt situation—let’s say Westinghouse Electronic Company. The response is claimed as a classified piece of information which is not to share to the press. Standing on public opinion, I have no doubt but asking to what extent information should be classified and held by only federal government. Let me remind the world about Global Financial Crisis in 2008 where the local innocent people woke up in the morning and realized their money in the bank had gone off due to complicating financial regulations done between the federal regulators and big fish in Wall Street.
The next question to the Secretary is very democratic reflecting the people’s concerns. In the context of popular fears in hazardous impacts of EMP attack, how could possibly Trump administration rationalize the extension of nuclear plants so that people agree to have it happen? The Secretary Perry does not feel it hard to answer at all by giving a case of environmentalist France where 76 % of its energy already comes from nuclear power. He may want to infer that no matter how much we concern about environment and EMP security people still need nuclear as great source for power. He speaks on behave of French people, “they are happy getting the rate they are getting.” By this what can be inferred is that US energy toward nuclear power is concerned with ‘proper’ rate allowed for needy consumption. But the exact number has not been affirmed yet. On my personal matter, if allowed to speak in name of American people, I would suggest that rate standardization is not good enough. In fact, low-risk geography should be put in consideration, unlike Fukushima which has high risks of destroying Tsunami.
In conclusion, world energy politic has been changed since US commits itself toward competing against other superpower, needless to say China and Russia, for global leadership in energy sector. At the same time, weaker states have to be careful when stronger states want to invest energy particularly nuclear energy in their lands.
