Free Trade in Energy
Export
The belief that creating barriers to
exports and infrastructure will lock oil and gas under the ground is a misplaced
one. Markets will clear, as long as the demand for fossil energy remains.
The United States as a superpower and leading global economy
has a vital interest in free trade and open markets in energy. The United
States, by virtue of both its superpower role and its position as the largest
oil consuming country, has a direct interest in preventing energy supply from
being used as a strategic weapon.
Barriers to foreign investment in energy resources in key
producing countries generally contribute to supply constraints, leading to
sharp rises global prices and potentially harming economic growth in major oil
consuming countries such as the United States and its key industrialized
trading partners. For three decades, the United States has recognized this and
has actively supported open markets and free trade in energy. To continue to do
so, the United States cannot restrict its own energy exports. By leading the
charge on new energy technologies and exports, the United States now has the
ability to fashion a global energy world more to its liking where petro-powers
can no longer hold American drivers hostage or turn off the heat and lights to
millions of consumers in the United States or allied countries to further
geopolitical ends.
Since the United States participates in international trade,
blocking exports of one or more particular commodities or manufactured products
cannot “protect” U.S. consumers from international prices.
Ultimately, the discussion of banning some energy commodity
exports and not others is a question of who in the United States economy gets
the profits from exports. U.S. gasoline and diesel exports will link
prices for U.S. consumers to international markets in the exact same way as
crude oil exports. And, any net exports
from the US will hurt OPEC eventually, whether it is refined products or crude.
That is because rising exports of U.S. refined products to international
markets will eventually erode profit margins for European, Asian and Latin
American refiners, causing them to reduce their own refinery throughputs,
lowering demand for crude oil generally and thereby weakening international
crude oil price levels. In this way, rising U.S. crude oil production impacts
global crude oil markets through displacement via U.S. refined product exports
and it is not
correct to say that OPEC has been shielded from the impact of rising US
production even if it seems to be trapped in the US midcontinent. Rising US tight oil production is impacting OPEC. Global oil
prices would be even higher, but for ongoing
disruptions in supplies from Libya, Nigeria, and Sudan, among others.
The only way to keep oil under the ground is to lower demand
more permanently through energy efficiency, lifestyle changes or externality
taxes or pollution markets.
With America’s oil and gas potential on the rise, returning
to the strategy of calling for mechanisms for a realistic carbon price and
other kinds of green finance is a better path to the task at hand, as some
world leaders pointed out in Davos earlier this month. Environmental groups
might do well to take stock of their tactical achievements from advocacy
against exports/pipelines and regroup to more effective ways to bring about
change. In the meantime, as long as demand for oil remains strong, exports should
be part of the arsenal of policies that the United States can tap to ensure
that resource nationalism does not deprive the global economy of needed energy
supply.