Future U.S. Energy Policy: Two Paths Diverge in a Wood-Does It Matter Which Is Taken?

摘要

As the U.S. is currently the second-largest global emitter of greenhouse gases, efforts to reduce emissions globally are profoundly impacted by U.S. environmental policy and inextricably linked to the U.S. political system, the operation of which may mirror the dynamics in other countries in Europe and Asia with similar systems facing similar contentious policy trade-offs. Since the 1970s, the gulf between the U.S. conservative (Republican) and liberal (Democratic) parties' prioritization of environmental issues has widened to the extent that adherence to the party line on environmental issues is seen as a litmus test of party membership. Such political polarization also creates a societal schism concerning the causes, degree, and even existence of climate change, and what actions-if any-should be taken to manage it. In recent polling, Democrats contend that climate change should be a "very high" governmental priority and is an issue for which they overwhelmingly feel that government is doing too little. Contradistinctively, Republicans view it less so and contend that the government's action is at least adequate. Many in the Republican establishment with more conservative views even strongly maintain that the societal status quo of a fossil-fuel-based economy is the correct energy pathway and that there should be an expansion of oil and gas drilling, hydraulicfracturing, and coal mining. In contrast, the Democrats oppose such an expansion. It seems that the visions of climate change and future energy policy are propelling the country in opposite directions.