The Great Migration of Oil Wealth to Green Energy Manufacturers in the US

The Green New Deal offers a giant divorce settlement between the U.S. and its oil and gas industries with financial damages being spent on the environment. This will lower temperatures by 2°C. The policy proposal amplifies the immigration crisis, encourages nuclear proliferation in Africa, and will not increase grid capacity in the U.S. to meet energy demand. Meanwhile, almost all of the U.S.’s trade partners including China and Singapore have pushed ahead using the marriage between oil, gas, and sustainable energy to grow to new heights outpacing many countries in the so-called developed world. Energy policy in the U.S. likewise needs to embrace any and all technology available to catch up, and it’s never been more critical to utilize these technologies to curb nuclear proliferation in unstable regions. The infrastructure updated in the U.S. over the next few decades will set the tone for much of the nation’s economic future for the next century. This requires a healthy dose of pragmatism in policy. The technological means and methods of sustainable design still require the consumption of oil, gas, and other fuels. Any policy that seeks to replace these with green is out of touch with the processes, manufacturing, and transportation that support green technology. Is there an electric megaship we don’t know about that can haul freight from China to the U.S.?

The domestic policy on oil and gas cannot be divorced from foreign policy in trade and defense. The efforts need to co-exist in a single coordinated mission.

The policy states, “We will need revenues between $700 billion to $1 trillion annually for the Green New Deal.” Or “between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10-years,” according to Bloomberg. $1.25T is what the U.S. earned in global exports in 2017. Refined petroleum represented 5.95% of total exports making it the leading commodity in demand globally followed by 4.47% accounting for cars. The U.S. further imported crude at 6% of total imports. In 2017, China’s lead over the US in global exports was $1.78T. In 2017, the GDP per capita was $59.5k and the Green New Deal is expected to cost each household $600,000. Many of the trade alliances between the US and other countries rely heavily on oil and gas which also have global security interests tied to them. At present, the regions of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa are not stable enough to absorb the shock and awe that the Green New Deal will transfer on the global economy and international infrastructure development with escalating military tensions.

It is unlikely that the writers of the Green New Deal were aware of how this agenda item would effect other policy areas and the global community. Stabilizing the migration crisis in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America which includes roughly 70m displaced people has required world leaders to call on both trade and security measures includes oil and gas development and international trade. The predominant natural resources African countries can offer trade partners in Asia, Europe, and the U.S. are oil and gas and mining materials. The demand for US presence and resource development in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia require thriving oil and gas industries, and the New Green Deal arrangement will not lower global oil and gas consumption but merely forfeit these markets entirely to China and Russia and their allies including Iran and causing their global influence to continue to expand territorially.

This is counter to the national security interests of the U.S. and Europe and will greatly amplify the migration crisis as one of the leading causes for the migration is the lack of employment opportunity in either undeveloped or war-torn countries. So, cutting oil and gas in the U.S. and threading that through to existing allies while fostering new ones will cut the majority of job growth promised in those areas. In Africa’s sub-Sahara, feasibility studies are being concluded for gas to electricity plants and supporting grids.  These are further peaceful alternatives to the growing nuclear programs in African countries through Russian and Chinese alliances. Removing oil and gas development in African countries would further amplify the Africa’s nuclear proliferation which is based on mining industries and Russia currently has claim to most of Africa’s uranium and is contracted to build nuclear programs throughout Africa.

The plan for the U.S. power grids in the lower 48 is to retrofit the existing grid networks with smart technology. Smart technology will not lower the 6% loss of energy expelled from using copper. It may help ration and the existing supply, but it will not increase the capacity. It will not equip energy providers to fill growing demand and presents no business model to replace the old networks with new and better performing materials in a safe, timely, and profitable manner. The Green New Deal borrowing from the Depression era New Deal projects of Franklin D. Roosevelt requires government owned lands and promotes government jobs not private sector growth. This is a anti-incentive to Private Sector Engagements calling on private industry to provide the latest in innovative solutions and technology. This includes technology that has taken decades of government funded R&D grants to produce. Materials like superconductive wires and cables are expected to finally hit mainstream affordability in the next five years that provide perhaps the best replacement for copper in both storage and transmission systems but will never see the light of day under the Green New Deal.

An Alternative Approach to Energy Investment

Archival Institute recently developed a business model to replace the grids over time that provides a more pragmatic approach to competing energy sectors. Power America builds bridges across competing energy sectors and offers and works with allied partners to diversify energy investment with tailored projects to fit unique demographic and natural resource challenges. This accomplishes not only the energy investment needed in the U.S. in a timely and profitable manner but develops energy globally with new and existing allies and strengthens international partners. It provides a way for the U.S. to better manage its relations with China and Russia, and also provides the private sector with new opportunities to expand into new territories and technologies. Instead of demanding a global energy divorce, it uses a strong economy to build a stronger environment.

Power America and energy programs overseas such as Power Africa can be coordinated in such a way that both natural resource development and infrastructure can be built across international trade partners with coordinated investment. Archival Institute has also developed a model coordinate bond financing for infrastructure updates in the US and USAID development finance overseas to maximize the economic growth across the entire U.S. sphere of influence. This is more in tune with the resources and global footprints of U.S. based multinational companies working in energy and other areas of infrastructure. This model produces rapid development across the U.S. and its allies and welcomes new partners at all stages of development. It offers means and methods for new allies to transition from AID programs to qualify for longer term and larger scale development finance for more permanent infrastructure and economic diversification to build long-term stability and growth.

This video shows how domestic and international development can be coordinated between multiple partners maximizing the efficiency of time, resources, and new technologies. This is how we will compete with China and Russia in the global development of infrastructure while also rebuilding the economic foundations our own homeland. For countries coming out of extreme poverty or conflict, this method presents a rapid recovery that will stifle ongoing security threats, migration, and humanitarian crises.

Source  |  Source  |  Source  |  Source  |  Source

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This