Power in the Future

Power in the Future

The Geopolitics of Alternative Energy

A Senior Project

presented to

the Faculty of the Political Science Department

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Dr. Shelley Hurt

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Arts

by

Carlos Makoto Villacis

March, 2014

© 2014 Carlos Villacis

P o w e r i n t h e F u t u r e C a r l o s V i l l a c i s

1 | P a g e

Real World Observation

According to a study released in December 2013 by the Energy Information

Administration (EIA), the United States is in the midst of an energy revolution. Domestic oil

production is expected to equal Saudi Arabia’s by 2016, and domestic natural gas production is

projected to shoot up by 56 percent from 2012 to 2040.1 Dr. Ernest Moniz, the U.S. Secretary of

Energy, expressed how these trends can be expected to continue to rise, as “projections are

increasing every year.”2 The Department of Energy is approving multiple facilities for the export

of liquefied natural gas to countries that do not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the

United States, with the authorization for Cameron LNG, LLC in February 2014 being the most

recent.3 This announcement makes it the fifth such facility to gain approval.4 On January 28th,

2014, in his 2014 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama declared “America is

closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades.”5

Although historically an importer, the development of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal

drilling technologies is allowing the United States to capitalize on its domestic abundance of

shale rock, carrying newly accessible oil and natural gas. Thus, the United States is increasing its

energy self-sufficiency, becoming less reliant on imports from unstable regions around the

world. This transition away from foreign energy dependence is progress towards finally fulfilling

promises from the Nixon and Carter Administrations. In response to the 1973 OPEC Oil

Embargo Crisis, President Richard Nixon established Project Independence, to “develop the

1 US Energy Information Administration. "AEO2014 Early Release Overview." eia.gov. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2014).pdf (accessed January 8, 2014). 2 Casey, Tina. "Ernest Moniz, Natural Gas And The “Forgotten Renewables”." Clean Technica. (accessed January 24, 2014). 3 Department of Energy. "Energy Department Conditionally Authorizes Cameron LNG to Export Liquefied Natural Gas." Energy.gov. (accessed February 24, 2014). 4 Rascoe, Ayesha, and Timothy Gardner. "UPDATE 3-U.S. approves exports from Sempra's Cameron LNG terminal." Reuters. (accessed February 24, 2014). 5 Obama, Barack. "President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address." Keynote speech, State of the Union 2014 from The White House, Washington, D.C., January 28, 2014.


2 | P a g e

capacity for self-sufficiency in energy supplies at reasonable cost.”6 President Jimmy Carter

placed this responsibility under the newly created Department of Energy in 1977, cementing the

commitment to long-term domestic energy production that has continued to this day.7 The

policies aimed at American energy independence are not only motivated by its economic

advantages, but also by its geopolitical ones.

Former Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger warned President Carter of the dangers

that reliance on volatile regions such as Iran posed, both economically and geopolitically.8 Now,

with the United States once again becoming an energy powerhouse, there is less reliance on

imports from traditional suppliers. Additionally, with the export of natural gas produced by

fracking of domestic shale rock, the United States becomes a new supplier for foreign importers,

who thus have new options for their own strategic energy policies. Such changes, resulting from

new technologies developed by a partnership between private and public sector investments,

have the potential to alter the traditional dispersion of power in international energy politics. In

addition, other new technologies are following the development of unconventional oil and gas

extraction, bringing forth additional changes in world energy politics. Thus, the question must be

asked: How will the United States’ investment in alternative sources of energy affect

geopolitics?

The Layman’s View

In a Gallup poll from 2013, 82% of Americans declared “the securing of adequate

supplies of energy for the U.S.” as a very important foreign policy goal. Energy security’s

6 Richard Nixon: "Annual Message to the Congress: The Economic Report of the President," February 1, 1974. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 7 Jimmy Carter: "Department of Energy Remarks Outlining Proposed Legislation To Create the Department.," March 1, 1977. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 8 Jimmy Carter: "Department of Energy Exchange of Letters on the Resignation of James R. Schlesinger as Secretary. ," July 20, 1979. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.


3 | P a g e

importance ranks higher than promoting and defending human rights, or favorable trade policies.

In fact, it is the third highest ranked goal, being closely outranked only by “preventing terrorism”

and “preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction”. However, unlike terrorism and

WMDs, which have held consistent levels of importance in these polls for the past decade, the

importance of energy security in the minds of Americans has been on the rise, jumping from

68% of citizens classifying it as “Very Important” in 2003 to its current level of 82%.9 Although

the cause of this increase is unspecified, it may be due to the increased publicity of issues such as

climate change, as well as rising gasoline prices.

Back in 2006, as the number of Americans focused on energy from the previous poll was

steadily increasing, a Pew Research Poll asked citizens if they agreed with President George

Bush’s assessment that the nation is “addicted to oil.” 85% of Americans agreed with the

statement, despite their overall disapproval of Bush’s handling of U.S. energy policy. The nation

was divided in its confidence of the U.S’s ability to end its reliance on oil in the next two

decades, with only half seeing it as a possibility.10 Around the same time, a separate Pew Poll

found that two-thirds of Americans felt “a decreased dependence on the Middle East for oil” was

the best way to prevent terrorism.11 Thus, one would expect that the United States’ current shale

boom, as a result of new extraction technologies, would be celebrated by Americans for

addressing these concerns.

However, hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling technologies, which

were catalytic in this domestic energy revolution, have failed to capture the awareness of many

9 Jones, Jeffrey M. "Americans Say Preventing Terrorism Top Foreign Policy Goal." Gallup Politics. (accessed September 11, 2013). 10 The Pew Charitable Trusts. "Iran a Growing Danger, Bush Gaining on Spy Issue." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. (accessed January 4, 2014). 11 The Pew Charitable Trusts. "Diminished Public Appetite for Military Force and Mideast Oil." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. (accessed January 3, 2014).


4 | P a g e

Americans. In a survey from September 2013, less than half of the public could correctly answer

that U.S. energy production is up in recent years. In addition, of those who answered correctly,

only a third were correct in attributing the trend to greater oil and gas exploration.12 Americans

do not realize that the U.S. is rapidly increasing the amount of its own energy it produces, with

83.2% of total consumption in 2012 coming from domestic production.13 As far as many

Americans are concerned, the United States is still heavily reliant on foreign sources of fuel, and

this is an issue that remains to be resolved.

As a solution to the perceived lack of energy in the United States, a 2013 Pew Poll found

that 65% of Americans favor the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, an energy issue that has

plagued the Obama Administration’s second term.14 The completion of this pipeline would

transport oil from Canada’s oil sands to Texas refineries, passing through the Midwest. In terms

of geopolitics, many Americans see this as a necessary step to further solidify relations with

energy-rich Canada, whose public has been feeling an increased divide with its neighbors to the

South, according to a Nanos-UB North American Monitor Tracking Study.15 Other traditional

sources of fuel remain popular options among the American public, as Pew Polls from

September 2013 showed 58% in favor of increased offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters.16

Unaware of the changes brought about by technologies such as fracking, many Americans see

traditional sources of petroleum as the main source of energy for the near future.

12 The Pew Charitable Trusts. "Continued Support for Keystone XL Pipeline." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. (accessed January 24, 2014). 13 Desilver, Drew. "Powered by oil and gas, U.S. energy production is on the rise." Pew Research Center RSS. (accessed December 24, 2013). 14 op. cit., fn. 12. 15 Nanos, Nik, and Munroe Eagles. "Tracking perceptions on US-Canada relations."Nanos-UB North American Monitor 1 (2010). (accessed February 12, 2014). 16 op. cit., fn. 12.


5 | P a g e

Of course, the public is not completely ignorant to the fracking of shale rock to produce

oil and natural gas. Although over a third of Americans have never heard of fracking, 37% have

heard at least a little about it, and 26% have heard a lot, according to a 2012 Pew Poll.17 By the

end of 2013, awareness of fracking had grown, despite the lack of understanding of its

connection to an increase in U.S. domestic energy production. Interestingly, 2013 data shows

that with increased knowledge of fracking, the public has significantly become opposed to the

technology. In March 2013, 48% of those aware of fracking had been in favor of it, compared to

38% in opposition. However, by September, the opposition had risen to 49%, while those in

favor represented only 44%. These figures remained consistent between those who were aware

of the U.S’s increased domestic production, and those who were unaware.18

As previously mentioned, Americans see increased energy independence as a foreign

policy priority, ultimately reducing threats of terrorism. However, many are either unaware of or

opposed to fracking, which has been the driving force behind the U.S.’s energy boom. So what

does the public believe is the method for achieving the geopolitical benefits of domestic energy

production? A 2014 poll found that 73% of Americans support government policy aimed at

better fuel efficiency regulations for cars and trucks. 19 According to a 2013 Gallup poll, solar

and wind power are most popular as sources of domestic energy production, with 76% and 71%

of those surveyed calling for more emphasis on these respective sources.20 Meanwhile, Pew Polls

show increased use of nuclear power having only 38% of the public’s support. Traditional

domestic oil and gas extraction through offshore drilling still retains support from the majority,

17 The Pew Charitable Trusts. "As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production Grows." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. (accessed March 1, 2014). 18 op. cit., fn. 12. 19 The Pew Charitable Trusts. "Energy: Key Data Points." Pew Research Center RSS. (accessed February 14, 2014). 20 Jacobe, Dennis. "Americans Want More Emphasis on Solar, Wind, Natural Gas." Gallup Politics. (accessed January 23, 2014).


6 | P a g e

with 58% in favor.21 Thus, in terms of the future of energy and geopolitics, the conventional

wisdom of the American people points to the use of increased efficiency in transportation,

increased traditional domestic fossil fuel extraction, and the increased support of solar and wind

energy technologies as means of decreasing reliance on imports from the Middle East, resulting

in less involvement in the region, reducing threats of terrorism.

The Literature Review

The literature on energy geopolitics has grown significantly over the past decade. A

primary reason for the growth in this area of scholarship can be attributed to the multiple wars

which recently involved the U.S. and the Middle East: The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite

the lack of official recognition of petroleum resources being involved in these conflicts, many

scholars suspect that the oil-rich region is attracting U.S. intervention at least partly due to the

economic and geopolitical role it plays.22 Much has been written about the role of petroleum in

the interactions between states. However, because advances in unconventional methods of fuel

extraction such as fracking are occurring at such a rapid rate, the scholarship has been unable to

keep up, and many works by the most prominent political scientists in the field have failed to

address these developments, despite the important questions they raise. Meanwhile, popular and

professional literature is tackling the topic of energy geopolitics as well, contributing its own

analysis of trends we can expect in the coming century, taking into account these new

technologies.

In combining the works of prominent political scientists and well respected writers, three

schools of thought have developed concerning energy geopolitics in the 21st century. First, there

are scholars who believe traditional sources of petroleum will maintain the dominant role it’s

21 op. cit., fn. 12. 22 DOUG STOKES (2007). Blood for oil? Global capital, counter-insurgency and the dual logic of American energy security. Review of International Studies, 33, pp 245-264. doi:10.1017/S0260210507007498.


7 | P a g e

held for the last century, and the location of its reserves will determine geopolitical hotspots.

Second, many political scientists and other writers see developments in unconventional fuel

extraction technologies as game-changing, claiming it will bring about a revolutionary

geopolitical shift unmatched by other alternative energy technologies. Finally, representing the

third school of thought, other political scientists who acknowledge fracking technologies foresee

a continuance of the status quo, claiming any major geopolitical shifts are over-exaggerated.

Thus, there lacks a consensus within the literature, with experts split on how U.S. investment in

alternative energy will affect geopolitics.

Overall, the literature is conflicted in the idea that oil may or may not maintain its

dominance in shaping relations between nations, and is split on whether or not fracking is the

technology that will bring about a change to this system that the world has grown to see as the

norm. Despite their disagreements, all three schools of thoughts have reached a consensus on the

value of “the usual suspect” energy technologies such as wind and solar. Although scholars see

investment in these fields as important for the future, at the moment, these sources of energy are

not scalable to the point where they can meet the growing needs of nations, especially to the

point where they will affect geopolitical relations.23 However, in altogether dismissing fuel

sources besides oil and natural gas, these authors have failed to identify another source of

alternative energy, which has been undergoing its own hidden revolution. Biofuels, strengthened

by recent developments in genetic engineering, are in the process of bringing forth an altogether

new model of energy geopolitics. By shifting importance from finite sources of fuel to access to

genetic material, genetically modified biofuels shift geopolitical focus from fossil-fuel rich

regions like the Middle East to biologically diverse areas like the Latin American Amazon. Thus,

23 Mark Jaccard Sustainable energy choices: comparing the options Jaccard, Mark. Sustainable Fossil Fuels Cambridge University Press 2006 Cambridge Books Online


8 | P a g e

without acknowledgement of this under-studied alternative energy, the literature on 21st century

energy geopolitics is incomplete.

The 1970s energy crisis, a result of the 1973 OPEC oil Embargo and 1979 Iranian

revolution, revealed to the United States the fragility of its supply of fuel from overseas, without

which it could not satisfy its growing needs.24 Pulitzer Prize winner Daniel Yergin points to the

geopolitical significance of these events, as the United States continued to increase its

investments in the stability of oil-producing states in the Middle East, a trend that had been on

the rise since the 40s.25 According to Timothy Mitchell of Columbia University, the development

of the Middle East’s oil production capacity can be traced back to the Western powers. With coal

workers in the West demanding the right to have their voices heard, politicians saw the

opportunity presented by oil in the Middle East, which would be less susceptible to democratic

demands. Thus, British and American investments were made in Middle Eastern oil, prioritizing

economic growth over the risk of reliance on unstable regions.26

Due to the disconnect between infinite economic growth and finite natural resources,

Mitchell predicts the inevitable approach of “peak oil,” where petroleum extraction reaches its

maximum rate, to be followed by “oil depletion”, where reserves dwindle.27 Brian C. Black of

Penn State Altoona also sees “peak oil” as an oncoming event, threatening the supply of fuel

which drives modern society. The effects that would then transpire include environmental

degradation, political instability, and world economic disparity.28 Despite these consequences,

Black and Mitchell both agree that the current use of oil is not going to change, and growing

24 "Oil Squeeze". Time magazine. 1979-02-05. Archived from the original on 7 September 2013. Retrieved 07 September 2013. 25 Yergin, Daniel. The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World. New York: Penguin Press, 2011 26 Mitchell, Timothy. Carbon democracy: Political power in the age of oil. Verso Books, 2011. 27 Ibid. 28 Black, Brian C. Crude Reality: Petroleum in World History. Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.


9 | P a g e

nations reliant on the fuel will engage in resource wars, engaging in conflict to ensure access to

the remaining sources of petroleum.29 Yergin also acknowledges the treat of “peak oil”, but

believes fuel efficiency practices can prolong the event long enough for a “game changing

technology” to develop.30

Among experts who have written on the recent developments in methods of extracting oil

and natural gas out of shale rock, many believe this to be the “game changing technology” that

the world has been waiting for. Michael Levi of the Council of Foreign Relations notes that oil

imports are falling for the first time in decades, and the U.S. is poised to take advantage of its

abundance of shale rock in both domestic and international markets.31 Amy Myers Jaffe of UC

Davis agrees, claiming shale gas will “revolutionize the industry.”32 By replacing coal, a

pollutant heavy fuel, natural gas can act as a transition fuel, buying more time to develop large

scale renewable energy technologies while the world weans itself off of petroleum and coal at a

manageable rate. Levi sees the potential to share this technology with China, who can not only

use it to handle their serious situation concerning air pollution, but also free itself from Russia’s

current monopoly on natural gas.33

Russia’s Gazprom currently uses its natural gas as geopolitical leverage, threatening its

customer nations with increased prices if they support policies unfavorable to Russia. Alfonso

Giordano of the University of Rome sees the opportunity for this new abundance of natural gas

on the market to not only weaken Russia, but simultaneously strengthen Europe.34 Jaffe and

29 op. cit., fn. 26. 30 op. cit., fn. 25. 31 Levi, Michael. The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America's Future. Oxford University Press, 2013. 32 Medlock, Kenneth B., Amy Myers Jaffe, and Peter R. Hartley. Shale gas and US national security. James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, 2011. 33 op. cit., fn. 31. 34 Hryniewiecki, Rafal, and Alfonso Giordano. "The Geopolitical Implications of the New Developments on Global Energy Markets: The Major Energy Actors Case." Journal of Global Policy and Governance (2013): 1-14.


10 | P a g e

Giordano agree that with the loss of its geopolitical leverage, Russia will compete with other

nations to secure sea routes, through which liquefied natural gas is transported.35 Thus, this

school of thoughts claims that the natural gas boom alters geopolitics by placing strength not

with those who control resources, but in the hands of the nations who dominate the sea routes

through which fuels are exported.

Within the few political scientists who have already visited the topic of fracking’s effect

on geopolitics, there are some who believe that it will not have as significant an effect as many

others believe. Jeff D Colgan of American University claims that natural gas, due to its markets

being more regionally driven than oil, will not be able to replace the fuel in a comparable way.36

Gonzalo Escribano of the Spanish Open University also believes that claims of a geopolitical

energy revolution are vastly exaggerated, warning European countries not to get too excited

about an oncoming change, and to continue to invest in developing better renewable energy

technologies. Although the new supply of natural gas will be exported by the United States, this

will not lead to energy independence, but will increase energy interdependence, where the

United States will become reliant on ensuring there will be a demand for their product.37 Colgan

shares this idea of interdependence, and stresses that oil will maintain its status quo as the

dominant fuel of the 21st century. He claims there will still be conflicts in oil-rich states that

garner international attention and continue to attract foreign intervention.38

Due to the recent and rapid nature of these developments in shale extraction technology,

there lacks an up-to-date collection of political science literature on how these advances affect

geopolitics. By analyzing the existing writings of experts in the field, along with primary sources

35 op. cit., fn. 32. 36 Colgan, Jeff D. "Fueling the Fire: Pathways from Oil to War." International Security 38, no. 2 (2013): 147-180. 37 Escribano, Gonzalo. "Shifting Towards What? Europe and the Rise of Unconventional Energy." Entelequia. Revista Interdisciplinar} (2012): 153-167. 38 op. cit., fn. 36.


11 | P a g e

that continue to develop, I provide answers to questions that are still just beginning to be asked.

While I acknowledge the significance of the U.S. shale boom, I put it in perspective of how the

changes that follow support the development of an economy supporting genetically enhanced

biofuels, a topic that remains untouched in the existing literature. Overshadowed by the more

publicized technological advances in unorthodox extraction of oil and natural gas, my research

details how the more hidden genetic revolution will bring about geopolitical change of an

unprecedented scale. The implications of my research will raise a myriad of new questions that

contribute to the academic discussion.

Although many claim that natural gas alone is not enough to change the petroleum fueled

society we live in, a combination of natural gas, genetically enhanced biofuels, and other

alternative energies significantly reduce the threat of “peak oil.” Unconventional petroleum alone

has the ability to delay “peak oil” by creating a new source of economically attainable fuel. Yet,

those who insist that unconventional natural gas is the game-changing fuel the world has been

waiting for rely on the assumption that a new technology will take many decades, and even over

a century to be developed while natural gas is used as a transition fuel. Neglected in this school

of thought are the current, rapid advances in genetic engineering, which are at a point where a

relatively long transition period will not be necessary. Thus, critics who claim fracking’s

geopolitical effects are over-exaggerated do not realize how close the actual “game changing

technology” is. Genetically enhanced biofuels will shift the geopolitical focus from the Middle

East to bio-diverse Latin America, and power will rest in the hands of those with access to

genetic material, not fossil-fuel reserves.

Methodology and Evidence


12 | P a g e

This research was conducted utilizing qualitative evidence, taking the form of both

primary and secondary evidence. The primary evidence comes from sources including, but not

limited to, presidential speeches, U.S. Senate Committee Records, Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA) publications, the Energy Information Administration, and data from the

International Energy Agency. Secondary research was conducted by studying resources

including peer-reviewed scholarship, speeches from the 2014 Physics of Sustainable Energy

Conference in Berkeley, and reports from third-party, non-partisan think tanks such as Resources

for the Future. Reputable newspaper outlets were also consulted, featuring The New York Times,

The Washington Post, and Reuters.

Through the use of these sources of qualitative data, two case studies were analyzed in

order to answer the research question of how the U.S.’s pursuit of alternative energy affects

geopolitics. These case studies represent two recent technological advances which each present

their own implications for geopolitical relations. The first case study is of unconventional natural

gas extraction technologies, primarily hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. The second

case study focuses on effects of genetically enhanced biofuel technologies. Through the

combination of in depth understandings of these case studies, this research provides an

understanding of the future of 21st century energy geopolitics, hypothesizing a shift in

geopolitical hotspots to the Western Hemisphere.

Theoretical Paradigm

In order to properly analyze the primary evidence involved in this research, realism is the

paradigm through which we can best understand the actions of the various states affected by

developments in alternative energy technologies. Realism assumes sovereign states as being the

most important actors in an anarchic international system. States act with self-help as their


13 | P a g e

overarching priority, taking the necessary steps to ensure their own survival. In terms of survival,

a state must have a certain amount of power. In realism, power is determined by capabilities,

most often in terms of military strength.39

Energy fits well into realism’s framework due to its role in determining capabilities. If

the U.S. did not have enough energy to power its military, its size or technological superiority

would be irrelevant. The current state of energy geopolitics translates best into the specific

paradigm of defensive realism. Defensive realists see one of the fundamental goals of a state to

be to maximize its own security. In other words, the most powerful state is one that can provide

for itself, and has the means to ensure its own survival. In terms of energy, defensive realism

would identify dependence on foreign fuel as a threat, as the state would be reliant on another

actor, who can only be expected to act in its own personal self-interest.40 Thus, a country’s goal

should be to maximize the amount of control it has over its own energy supply, minimizing

outside involvement. Gerald Ford, in his 1975 Commencement Address at the United States

Military Academy, stated how industrial states must prioritize securing “sources of energy to

power both their economic and their military efforts.”41 In this sense, recent history’s state of

American reliance on the Middle East for oil should be interpreted as a loss of power. The

importance of the ongoing shale revolution is not lost on President Barack Obama, who in 2013

boasted “the energy sector is one that is an enormous advantage for the United States,” as “we're

39 Brian Schmidt, “Theories of US Foreign Policy,” in Michael Coz & Doug Stokes, eds., US Foreign Policy (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2008): 11-13 40 Ibid. 41 Gerald R. Ford: "Commencement Address at the United States Military Academy.," June 4, 1975. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.


14 | P a g e

starting to see changes in geopolitics, in part because of the incredible production of both

traditional energy sources and new energy sources.”42

Through the lens of defensive realism, it would make sense that the United States would

like to withdraw from its involvement in volatile regions for energy security. Defensive realists

warn against over-expansion, and see restraint as a preferred strategy. 43 Through restraint,

military resources are not over-used, and energy is conserved. Ultimately, realism sees energy as

a source of strength for the military, and investment in alternative fuels is not necessarily

connected to environmental motivations. Although alternative fuels do provide environmental

benefits, the United States’ R&D strategy of “dual-use” investment allows for the private sector

to advance environmental uses, while the public sector utilizes the same technological advances

for military use.44 As a result, despite the environmental benefits of sharing such technologies

with states like China who struggle with issues of air pollution, the United States, acting in its

own self-interest, is incentivized to keep the technology to itself, thus keeping the geopolitical

benefits. This line of thought has already been seen in the development of nuclear technology,

where the U.S. utilizes its ability to provide energy, but because of its potential to be used

militarily, fights the adoption of such technologies by states like Iran.45 With defensive realists

criticizing U.S. involvement in the Middle East as a threat to power, new developments in

alternative energy technology which allow the United States to reduce its reliance on the region

should be seen as a rebuttal to claims of American decline.

Case Study: Unconventional Natural Gas Extraction

42 Barack Obama: "Remarks at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Fundraiser in Pinecrest, Florida," November 8, 2013. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 43 op. cit., fn. 39. 44 Carlos Villacis. “The Perseverance of US Technological Supremacy,” POLS 420. (2012). 45 Carl R. Behrens and Richard E. Rowberg. RL30307: Department of Energy: Programs and Reorganization Proposals. September 17, 1999.


15 | P a g e

In January 2014, British Petroleum released its Energy Outlook 2035 report, in which it

described the trends they are witnessing in energy production, consumption, and trade. In its

fourth annual edition, the Outlook begins by assuring readers that there is enough energy to meet

the growing worldwide demand reliably. Among the report’s most shocking revelations are the

strong claims that oil will soon lose its market share, OPEC will be cutting its production for the

first time since 1980, and petroleum is projected to be the slowest growing major fuel in the

coming decades. BP claims that natural gas, the fastest growing source of energy, is in the

process of overtaking the power sector, and is moving into the industrial sector, before making

its expected conquest of the transportation sector.46 All of these developments are a direct result

of new, unconventional fuel extraction technologies being utilized in the United States, making it

the largest producer of natural gas in the world.47

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is the process by which natural

gas is extracted from shale rock. Although the U.S. is home to large amounts of shale deposits

known to contain equally large amounts of gas, the resource had been economically unattainable

until the last decade.48 However, the new technologies of fracking and horizontal drilling have

resulted in a boom in shale gas investment, and have led the International Energy Agency to

declare in its 2011 World Energy Outlook the potential for a “Golden Age of Gas.”49 According

to reports put out by Resources for the Future, an independent non-partisan think-tank, this

process accounted for over 23% of U.S. natural gas extraction in 2010, in contrast to the measly

46 "BP Energy Outlook 2035 Shows Global Energy Demand Growth Slowing, Despite Increases Driven by Emerging Economies." BP Energy Outlook 2035, January 15, 2014. (accessed March 5, 2014). 47 BP. "BP." Natural gas production. (accessed March 12, 2014). 48 Henry D. Jacoby, Francis M. O’Sullivan, and Sergey Paltsev, “The Influence of Shale Gas on U.S. Energy and Environmental Policy,” Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy, Vol. 1, No. 1. IAEE. (2012), 1. 49 International Energy Agency, “Are we Entering a Golden Age of Gas? World Energy Outlook Special Report,” OECD, (2011).


16 | P a g e

1.6% it represented just ten years before.50 The explosion of natural gas investments has been felt

in the shale rich states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New

York, and especially in Texas and North Dakota.51

President Obama, in his 2012 State of the Union Address, declared that “it was public

research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technology to extract all

this gas out of shale rock.”52 According to the RFF, the United States adopted many policies in

the late 70s to increase natural gas production, including “incentive pricing, tax credits, R&D

programs for unconventional natural gas, and policies promoting industry restructuring.”53 Such

programs, initiated by the government, helped pave the way for companies to capitalize on

opportunities created by government research, as well as incentives to make private research and

investment more affordable. The 1980 Alternative Energy Futures Report, made available

through OTA publications, shows that such investments were spearheaded by government in

response to a natural gas shortage, and a reluctance to rely on foreign imports to meet natural gas

demands. Although shale rock’s presence was known, it was unconventional in the sense that it

was difficult and expensive to extract. In the report, it reveals that Jimmy Carter predicted this

domestic natural gas production boom, understanding the payoffs that government investments

would have, decades before they materialized.54

Investments made by the government were not limited to extraction technologies, but

also included policy aimed at creating an infrastructure capable of handling this predicted boom,

as well as investments in technology to locate the shale deposits from which the gas is

50 Zhongmin Wang and Alan Krupnick, “US Shale Development: What Led to the Boom?” Resources for the Future. (May 2013). 3. 51 Ibid. 52 Barack Obama, “2012 State of the Union Address,” (January 25, 2012) 53 op.cit., fn. 50. 54 Office of Technology Assessment, “Alternative Energy Futures: Part I - The Future of Liquefied Natural gas Exports,” (March 1980). 30.


17 | P a g e

extracted.55 These Department of Energy policies included 3D seismic mapping, as well as

micro-seismic fracturing mapping.56 It was the DOE’s Eastern Gas Shales Project, making these

investments in the midst of a natural gas shortage, which revealed the tremendous amount of gas

available in domestic shale.57 When asked about the role of government, self-proclaimed

conservative geologist Dan Steward, whose company Mitchell Energy pioneered shale gas in

Texas, claimed “They did a hell of a lot of work, and I can’t give them enough credit for that.

[The Department of Energy] started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it. You cannot

diminish DOE’s involvement.”58

President Carter found trouble convincing congress that such governmental involvement

was necessary, but after negotiations in which he agreed to gradually deregulate after initial

progress was made, the 95th congress allowed him to follow through with his 1977 National

Energy Plan. Crucial elements of this plan included the government control of natural gas prices,

in order to stimulate investment in the emerging technologies.59 Although controversial at the

time, this was a necessity in hindsight, as “unconventional gas sources could not compete with

conventional oil or gas sources for investment dollars, and most US gas producers were small

and did not have the incentive or capacity to do much R&D”60 In his 1981 State of the Union

Annual Message to Congress, President Carter cited this energy plan as a key component of his

“Record of Progress.” In the beginning of his report, he placed the decrease in foreign oil

55 Lawrence Kumis, “Natural Gas Policy Act Issue Brief Number IB81020,” Library of Congress. (January 20, 1983). 56 op.cit., fn. 50. 57 Alex Trembath, “US Government Role in Shale Gas Fracking History: An Overview and Response to our Critics,” The Breakthrough. (March 2, 2012). 58 Breakthrough Staff, “Interview with Dan Steward, Former Mitchell Energy Vice President,” The Breakthrough. (December 12, 2011). 59 Lawrence Kumis, “Natural Gas Policy Act Issue Brief Number IB81020,” Library of Congress. (January 20, 1983). 60 op.cit., fn. 50.


18 | P a g e

dependence between the other major accomplishments of "recovering from a recession" and

"peace for four uninterrupted years."61

In signing the Energy Security Act of 1980, Jimmy Carter invested $22 billion in the

Synthetic Fuels Corporation, for the development of alternative energies including biomass fuels

and fuel production through shale.62 Such a high cost investment, which took multiple decades to

pay off, would not have been made without expectations of a huge payoff. Ultimately, Carter’s

energy policies were made with geopolitics in mind. Now, over 30 years later, these investments

have finally materialized in the form of the shale boom, and the United States is looking to

ensure that the result is an increase in power through energy security. In recent years, gas

exporting nations have enjoyed geopolitical benefits over the United States and its allies.63 By

gaining strength in the gas export market, the United States will be weakening the influence held

by the “OPEC of gas.”

Although no formal organization exists at the moment, members of the Gas Exporting

Countries Forum including nations such as Russia and Venezuela have been in talks of forming a

cartel since the growth of the market for liquefied natural gas (LNG).64 By leveraging threats of

increasing prices and/or placing constraints on development of new pipelines and LNG facilities,

thus constricting the supply, gas exporting nations have in recent decades enjoyed power over

nations reliant on these sources of energy, especially among those in Europe.65 If any of these

threats materialize, gas importing nations could face periodic shortages, which could prove

61 Jimmy Carter: "The State of the Union Annual Message to the Congress," January 16, 1981. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 62 Ibid. 63 Klare, Michael T.. Rising powers, shrinking planet: the new geopolitics of energy. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008. 64Bahree, Bhushan, and Gregory L. White. "Gas Cartel Gains Traction With Alliance Set to Meet." The Wall Street Journal. (accessed January 24, 2014). 65 Daya, Ayesha, and James Herron. "Gas Exporters to Study Cartel." The Wall Street Journal. (accessed March 1, 2014).


19 | P a g e

detrimental to national economies. Even without the formation of cartels, many of these

exporting nations are unstable, and political upheavals can have consequences on importers with

limited alternatives. Thus, import-dependent nations have been seeking new sources of

traditional natural gas supplies, exploring ecologically fragile areas of the likes of Siberia and

Northern Alaska.66

Among the gas exporting nations, Russia is by far the most influential. According to data

from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Russian export volume far exceeds that of

other exporting nations.67 Gazprom, Russia’s state owned gas monopoly, represents the face of

Russia’s natural gas exports. Before the North American shale boom, Gazprom executives had

intended to supply 20% of the U.S. LNG market by 2015.68 Zeyno Baran, former Director of

International Security and Energy Programs for The Nixon Center, warned The United States

Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2005 that Gazprom is “one of Moscow's main foreign

policy tools.”69 Senator Richard H. Lugar agrees, telling the same committee three years later

that Gazprom’s actions are clearly not motivated by economics alone. “Gazprom has sacrificed

profits and needed domestic infrastructure investments to achieve Russian foreign policy goals,”

he claims, expressing difficulty in separating the actions of Gazprom from the Russian

government.70

Gazprom’s biggest customer is Europe, with Western Europe importing 105.5 billion

cubic meters (bcm) from Russia in 2012, the largest amount of natural gas traded between

66 op. cit., fn. 63. 67 BP. "Natural gas trade movements." bp. (accessed February 24, 2014). 68 Kupchinsky, Roman. "Russian Energy Sector Opaqueness." Address, Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from AZEast Group, Washington DC, June 12, 2008. 69 Baran, Zeyno. "Energy Supplies in Eurasia and Implications for U.S. Energy Security." Address, Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion from The Nixon Center , Washington DC, September 27, 2005. 70 Lugar, Richard G.. "Opening Statement." Address, Hearing on Oil, Oligarchs and Opportunity: Energy from Central Asia to Europe from US Senate, Washington DC, June 12, 2008.


20 | P a g e

regions that year.71 As a result, European nations have struggled in where to position their

policies: With the American position, or with the Russian position. An example can be seen in

the 2008 controversy surrounding the decision on whether Ukraine and Georgia could gain

membership to NATO. Americans were in support of offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP)

to these two nations, but Russia opposed, regarding Ukraine as an “artificial country.”72

Although Eastern and Central European nations sided with the United States, France and

Germany joined the Russians, for fear of angering their natural gas supplier through opposing its

policy position. Based on 2008 figures, Germany is expected to import 60% of its gas from

Russia.73 Here, we see a clear example of the geopolitical downfalls of reliance on energy

imports.

The U.S.S.R.’s dissolution in 1991 resulted in the creation of 12 independent states,

bringing an end to the Cold War between the U.S. and its superpower counterpart.74 As Russia

became separated from nations in Central Asia on a political map, it lost land which held much

strategic value both in its location and the hydrocarbon reserves within the territory. The former

Soviet lands surrounding the Caspian Sea became the nations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, sandwiched between energy

giants Russia and Iran.75 The Caspian Sea holds within it tremendous potential as a source of oil

and natural gas, and the United States made it a point to promote policy that would “prevent

Russia and Iran from successfully imposing a dual-key lock on exploration and transport of oil

71 op. cit., fn. 67. 72 Erlanger, Steven. "Russian Aggression Puts NATO in Spotlight." The New York Times. (accessed March 20, 2014). 73 op. cit., fn. 67. 74 Union, Soviet, and Autonomous SSRs. "Dissolution of the Soviet Union." December 26, 1991. 75 op. cit., fn. 63.


21 | P a g e

and gas reserves from the Caspian.”76 Focus on the Caspian was initiated by the Clinton

Administration, with President Bill Clinton telling President Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan “We

not only help Azerbaijan to prosper, we also help to diversify our energy supply and strengthen

our nation’s security.”77 In a time when the United States was heavily reliant on imports, energy

security was a heavy motivation for actions overseas.

Due to the Caspian Sea’s geological feature of being landlocked, pipelines were built to

transport fuel to international markets. However, being built during the Cold War era, these

pipelines were routed through Russia, a feature that made U.S. policymakers uneasy.78 The only

other economically sensible route for exporting oil and gas ran through Iran, and Washington did

not want to rely on these lines either.79 As a result, the United States supported the development

of new pipeline projects, with the Bush Administration overseeing the completion of the Baku-

Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, stretching west from Kazakhstan through Azerbaijan, Georgia,

and Turkey to the Mediterranean.80 Despite the U.S’s expensive efforts to diversify suppliers on

the market, Russia maintained a strong hold on the region, with Gazprom buying gas from

Central Asia and selling it to reliable European markets, making a profit off of Europe’s

demand.81 Before the shale revolution, Russia viewed the U.S. as the potential number one

market for LNG, which would have made the U.S. more answerable to Russian demands,

76 Fuerth, Leon. "OIL, OLIGARCHS, AND OPPORTUNITY: ENERGY FROM CENTRAL ASIA TO EUROPE." Address, Committee on Foreign Relations from The Elliot School of International Affairs The George Washington University, Washington DC, June 12, 2008. 77 Office of the Press Secretary, White House, “Visit of President Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan,” August 1, 1997. 78 Harbert, Karen. "Statement of Karen Harbert Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Department of Energy Before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate." Address, Subcommittee on International Economic Policy from Department of Energy, Washington DC, September 27, 2005. 79 op. cit., fn. 63. 80 op. cit., fn. 78. 81 op. cit., fn. 63.


22 | P a g e

needing the source of energy to supply American natural gas needs, which had been consistently

increasing.82

American use of natural gas continues to rise, as efforts are underway to utilize the fuel

as a replacement for coal, reducing CO2 emissions. At the time the Director of the MIT Energy

Initiative, Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz revealed to the United States Senate Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources the results of the 2011 MIT study on the Future of Natural Gas,

outlining natural gas’ potential to replace coal in power generation and industry, generate

electricity for buildings, and replace oil in transportation.83 The source of this natural gas would,

of course, not be Russia, but domestic. Since the 2000s, natural gas generation in the United

States has grown faster than any other energy source, and the shale gas boom has pushed prices

to “record lows.”84 The development of unconventional methods of natural gas extraction has

propelled North America into the role of an energy giant, joining the status of past/present rivals.

The findings of the MIT study revealed that “70% of all gas resources are located in only three

regions: Russia, the Middle East and North America.”85

In the Middle East, Qatar and Iran are the two powerhouses of natural gas. Qatar, with

the third largest natural gas reserves in the world, is the world’s leading supplier of LNG.86 The

country has a positive growing relationship with the United States, seen as a pivotal partner in

facilitating dialogue and an understanding of United States’ policy with the Arab and Muslim

world. Qatar is influential in shaping how the U.S. is perceived in the region, being the home of

82 op. cit., fn. 78. 83 Moniz, Ernest J.. "MIT Study on the Future of Natural Gas." Address, United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources from Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Washington DC, July 19, 2011. 84 Jenkins, Jesse D.. "TESTIMONY OF JESSE D. JENKINS DIRECTOR OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICY BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE." Address, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES from Breakthrough Institute, Washington DC, May 22, 2012. 85 op. cit., fn. 83. 86 Ziadeh, Susan L.. "Statement." Address, SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS from AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE TO THE STATE OF QATAR, Washington DC, June 21, 2011.


23 | P a g e

the satellite television network Al Jazeera, broadcasts its programs 24/7 in both Arabic and

English. The United States has worked to ensure its interests and approaches to issues in the

region remain compatible, and has partnered with Qatar on democratization, education, and in

combatting terrorism.87 With natural gas trade solidifying this relationship, the Export-Import

Bank of the United States revealed in its 2013 report that the country with the most LNG

transactions with the U.S. is Qatar.88

Iran, on the other hand, has a difficult relationship with the West. Iran has been

developing a nuclear program, for what is claimed to be energy related use. However, the United

States is heavily against the development of Iranian nuclear technologies, due to its dual-use

potential of being weaponized.89 As a result, the United States and Europe have enacted

sanctions on Iran, among those being the boycotting of Iranian oil. In a February 2014 news

conference with President François Hollande of France, President Obama stressed how these

sanctions have so far succeeded in halting and rolling back key parts of the Iranian nuclear

program. 90 However, a loophole exists, through which natural gas can still be imported from

Iran, under the claim that it is used for electricity generation, and is thus the importing of

electricity, which technically does not go against the sanction parameters.91 Europe is hesitant to

cut itself off from Iranian natural gas, due to the temptation of diversifying its natural gas supply

away from reliance on Russian exports. Speaking to the UN General Assembly in 2013,

President Obama urged other nations to support the U.S. in its efforts of boycotting Iran to

87 LeBaron, Joseph Evan. "Statement." Address, Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from U.S. Department of State, Washington DC, May 1, 2008. 88 U.S. Congressional Research Service. Export-Import Bank Financing of Liquefied Natural Gas-Related Transactions, (March 25, 2013). Accessed: December 10, 2013. 89 Graham, Lindsey. "Iran Nuclear Program: Assume the Worst." Address, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on State and Foreign Operations from South Carolina, Washington DC, February 28, 2012. 90 Barack Obama: "The President's News Conference With President François Hollande of France," February 11, 2014. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 91 Mark Kirk. "Manchin and Kirk Seek To Close Iranian Sanctions Loophole." Mark Kirk: U.S. Senator for Illinois. (accessed January 5, 2014).


24 | P a g e

pressure abandonment of its nuclear program, stating “this is not simply an issue between the

United States and Iran.”92

Turkey has been rapidly growing its domestic energy demand. However, due to a strong

U.S.–Turkey bilateral relationship, Turkey has allowed for the transportation of natural gas from

the Caspian through its territory to Europe, despite the need for natural gas in the Turkish

domestic market.93 This sacrifice has made the development of the Southern Corridor possible,

allowing Central Asian nations to export their gas to the West. Unfortunately for the United

States, this sacrifice by the Turkish left a gap in supply for Turkish gas imports, which could

only be filled by Iran.94 Thus, the United States has found trouble in balancing its goals of

ensuring a diverse supply of gas to European allies, and sanctioning Iran until nuclear ambitions

are dropped.

There is much optimism that U.S. natural gas has saved Europe from many of its

geopolitical issues. In April 2012, the Department of Energy approved its first permit for a

facility looking to export LNG to non-Free Trade Agreement (FTA) countries. However, the

second was not approved until May 2013, and this particular application had taken 29 months

since it was initially submitted to move forward.95 Approvals have significantly picked up pace

since then, due to the results of a DOE commissioned study on the domestic economic risks and

benefits of exporting natural gas showing a positive effect for the U.S.96 Thus, although the U.S.

92 Barack Obama: "Remarks to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City," September 24, 2013. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 93 Nanay, Julia. "U.S. Energy Security Issues: Russia and the Caspian." Address, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion from PFC Energy, Washington DC, April 30, 2003. 94 Ricciardone, Francis J. "Testimony." Address, Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Ambassador-Designate to the Republic of Turkey, Washington DC, August 2, 2011. 95 Lisa Murkowski, "The Narrowing Window: America's Opportunity to join the Global Gas Trade," 113th Congress, August 6, 2013. 96 W. David Montgomery, “Macroeconomic Impact of LNG Exports from the United States,” NERA Economic Consulting, December 3, 2012.


25 | P a g e

is currently a net importer, a domestic production surplus is projected by 2019.97 Of course, the

new developments in American natural gas production have already affected global market

competition on the commodity, with prices being reduced for importers. The point is not that the

U.S. will replace Russia as the source of European gas, but that clients will have stronger

negotiation positions, and LNG exports from the U.S. could “also strengthen global resilience to

turmoil in the Middle East.”98

Concerning the current crisis in Ukraine, with Russian annexation of Crimea, natural gas

again plays a very strategic role. On March 3rd, 2014, when Russian military incursions into

Ukraine had already begun, the Russian government demanded Ukraine’s interim government

repay all fuel debts owed to Gazprom ($1.55 billion), or face the consequence of increased

prices. Ukraine, which uses more gas than France and gets more than half of its supply from

Russia, is no stranger to Russia using its role as geopolitical leverage. Twice before, Ukraine has

been cut off from Russian gas. Due to 66% of Russian gas going to the EU passing through

Ukraine, the developments in the region can very easily have global consequences.99

Congress has been hard at work, calling for the U.S. to “speed up” natural gas exports to

Ukraine, in order to help out European allies. Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader

Harry Reid have both received requests for such congressional action from Ambassadors to

Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.100 Rep. Michael Turner introduced a bill in

March, calling for an expansion of U.S. gas exports to all World Trade Organization countries.101

97 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2013, pp. 3, 79, and 100-103: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf. 98 op. cit., fn. 95 99 Bender, Jeremy. "Russia Is Threatening To Raise Gas Prices On Ukraine If $1.55 Billion Debt Isn't Paid." Business Insider. (accessed March 12, 2014). 100 Barron-Lopez, Laura. "Europe calls for more US natural gas exports." The Hill. (accessed March 15, 2014). 101 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. 2014. To provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas to World Trade Organization countries, and for other purposes. 113th Congress, 2nd session, March 5.


26 | P a g e

However, the infrastructure is not at a level in the U.S. for natural gas exports to be sped up. In

addition, Michael Levi of the Council of Foreign Relations points out how the infrastructure is

not the U.S.’s only flaw in this plan, stating "Gas companies still won't lose money on purpose to

help the United States achieve geopolitical gains."102 At the moment, making emergency gas

sales to Europe would be near impossible in terms of costs. U.S. gas diplomacy, although

containing long term potential to affect global markets, is not in a situation where it can come to

Ukraine and Europe’s rescue at the moment.

In the long term, U.S. natural gas exports have the potential to act as an alternative if

Russia threatens to cut off European gas supplies. If Russian gas costs were to skyrocket or

simply become unavailable for purchase, it would make sense for U.S. gas companies to pay the

costs for LNG export, knowing they would have a market for the expensive gas.103 Shipping gas

to Europe, including costs of liquefaction, would add about $4 to the price (per million Btu).104 If

U.S. gas companies were to commit to long term investment in the European market, they would

be affected by Russian gas prices, attempting to undercut the U.S. gas. As a result, instead of

alleviating the geopolitical influence of Russia, the U.S. would become “less insulated from

energy-related turmoil,” and could ironically “deter Washington from aggressively confronting

Russia.105

The United States, due to its unconventional methods of natural gas extraction, will soon

meet all its gas needs through domestic production and trade with Canada. Security in gas supply

allows the United States to dismiss ideas of becoming reliant on LNG imports, especially from

nations like Russia. U.S. LNG exports, although not as powerful a geopolitical tool as many in

102 Johnson, Keith. "Help is Not on the Way." Foreign Policy. (accessed March 21, 2014). 103 Levi, Michael. "An Energy Weapon vs. Russia?." Council on Foreign Relations. (accessed March 15, 2014). 104 Michael Levi, "A Strategy for U.S. Natural Gas Exports," The Hamilton Project, (June 2012). 105 op. cit., fn. 103.


27 | P a g e

congress believe, are still able to affect gas prices overseas, and provide alternatives for

European nations should such a need arise. In addition, due to pressure being relieved for

Europeans, they are more likely to support sanctions against states like Iran, thus still providing

geopolitical benefits for the U.S. On top of benefits in relations between states, the U.S. will also

enjoy environmental benefits, due to natural gas replacing coal use domestically.

Through the renewable generation of natural gas from these shale deposits, an

International Association for Energy Economics report claims that coal plants can be retired,

energy needs can be met, and emissions targets reached.106 This transition from coal to natural

gas as a source of electricity is already under way, states Fareed Zakaria. U.S. Energy

Information Administration’s data, claiming that between 2006 and 2012, natural gas had

increased its portion of national energy production from 20% to 30%. In the same time period,

coal’s share dropped from 50% to 37%. As a result, 2012 U.S. CO2 emissions were the lowest

they have been in 18 years, and Zakaria, citing EIA data, claims “U.S. emissions fell over the last

five years by more than all of Europe's did.”107 President Obama stressed how this was part of an

international effort by both governments and businesses, proclaiming “Climate change and other

environmental problems cannot be fully addressed by government alone, [so] we are also

engaging key stakeholders at home and abroad.”108

Partnership between businesses and government is a large part of how the United States

maintains technological superiority. Dual-use investment in technology is a policy where the

private and public sectors share R&D costs, engaging in trading of technology, with military

advances commercialized, and commercial advances militarized. An example of such

106 Henry D. Jacoby, Francis M. O’Sullivan, and Sergey Paltsev, “The Influence of Shale Gas on U.S. Energy and Environmental Policy,” Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy, Vol. 1, No. 1. IAEE. (2012), 1. 107 Global Public Square Draft, “Could Fracking in China be a climate game changer?” CNN. (May 19, 2013). 108 Barack Obama: "Proclamation 8962 - Earth Day, 2013," April 19, 2013. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=103519.


28 | P a g e

development would be GPS. Initially developed by the U.S. military, the private sector then

commercialized it, making improvements along the way.109 After, the U.S. military took those

improvements, applied them to their own needs, and continued to improve the technology. Such

practices can be seen in energy as well, with nuclear being the most common example. As a

result, nuclear energy technology is not shared with nations like Iran, due to the potential of

being weaponized.110

Due to the decades of R&D costs, shared between public and private sectors, spent on the

development of unconventional natural gas technologies, experts would see it as unlikely that the

U.S. would willingly share it with other countries. Of these other countries, China has the most

to gain from acquiring hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies.111 It is estimated

that China’s shale deposit resources are twice the amount held within the United States, and the

ability to extract it would be a godsend for China, whose population growth and energy needs are

increasing with frightening speed.112 China is also struggling with air pollution, caused by its

heavy use of coal as a source of electricity, also contributing greatly to global atmospheric CO2

content.113

The United States has always been cautious when dealing with transfer of technology

with China. Clearly, there is a risk of such technologies being used to strengthen military

capabilities, which would be regrettable for the U.S. if relations were to deteriorate.114 Yet, many

were shocked when The White House Office of the Vice President released its Joint Fact Sheet

109 Gary L. Denman, “DENMAN ADDRESSES TECHNOLOGY-BASED PARTNERSHIP CONFERENCE 1995” (speech, Technology-Based Partnership Conference , Santa Barbara, CA, February 2 ,1995). 110 op. cit., fn. 44. 111 Global Public Square Draft, “Could Fracking in China be a climate game changer?” CNN. (May 19, 2013). 112 Scissors, Derek. "Clean Energy in China and the U.S.: It’s Not What You Spend ." Address, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources from The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC, June 14, 2012. 113 EPA, “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,” (April 30, 2013), http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html (Accessed May 25, 2013). 114 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Energy Technology Transfer to China—A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-ISC-30 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1985).


29 | P a g e

on Strengthening U.S.-China Economic Relations in December 2013, where it outlined plans to

accelerate exports of technologies which would allow China to locate and extract oil and gas

from its shale deposits.115 Without the U.S.’s help, the chances of China’s success in extracting

fuel from its shale deposits are slim.116 This willingness to share such precious technology is a

significant change in policy, presenting a paradox, as these moves would not have been made

without reasonable advantages for the U.S., geopolitically.

Natural gas is a far more regional fuel than oil. LNG is a means of transporting this

energy source overseas, but is expensive in terms of infrastructural costs, as well as costs per unit

when competing with suppliers who utilize pipelines.117 It is likely the United States will become

more North America focused in its energy policy due to the shale boom, with the new abundance

of gas acting as a market mechanism to lower European prices, and aid in times of crisis.

However, the U.S. still has the interests of its allies in Europe and Central Asia in mind, and

needs a way to consistently diversify the gas supply away from Gazprom, without overextending

its reach and hurting itself in the process. Similarly, the United States is still invested in Middle

Eastern stability, and needs a capable ally to take over the U.S.’s role in the region. With

energy’s major role in regional geopolitics, the United States is forging a mutually beneficial

partnership with China, setting the groundwork for a major 21st century alliance.

China, with its growing population and industrial capacity, is a major global energy

consumer. To meet these needs, China has been purchasing gas from Russia at prices higher than

what Europe pays. In addition, China has been establishing relationships with the Middle East,

115 Office of the Vice President, "Joint Fact Sheet on Strengthening U.S.-China Economic Relations," The White House, (December 5, 2013). 116 Mufson, Steven. "China struggles to tap its shale gas." Washington Post. (accessed February 24, 2014). 117 op. cit., fn. 36.


30 | P a g e

scrambling to support its growing demand.118 By enabling China to extract its abundant shale

fuel deposits, the U.S. can establish a positive relationship, and likely get technology or a reliable

supply of rare earth materials in return.119 The United States can withdraw from the Middle East,

reducing its resource use, and China can take over the role, looking out for both U.S. and

Chinese interests. Finally, by being significantly closer to Europe than the United States, China

can diversify European natural gas imports, most likely utilizing Central Asian gas pipelines

built with U.S. support.120 Despite the ability of natural gas to improve military capabilities,

President Obama stated in a news conference that, concerning states like China, “We have the

kind of relationship with them where we're not getting in conflicts of that sort.”121 A relationship

in which the U.S. shares game-changing energy technology only strengthens the bond between

the two nations.

Still, the strategy of sharing this hard earned technology reveals additional clues about the

U.S.’s long term alternative energy strategy. Natural gas prices, despite all the benefits it

provides the U.S. geopolitically, are expected to fluctuate in the coming decades.122 With the

trade of LNG, the U.S. would have to focus efforts on protecting sea lanes, which despite the

U.S.’s unmatched naval strength, would be an increased use of energy and military resources.

With gas exploration in the arctic as well, natural gas will become increasingly abundant, and

fracking’s benefits alone will not give the U.S. the long term benefit that many are hoping for.123

118 op. cit., fn. 63. 119 Wadia, Cyrus. "Government Initiatives." Speech, Physics of Sustainable Energy III from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, March 9, 2014. 120 op. cit., fn. 63. 121 Barack Obama: "The President's News Conference in St. Petersburg, Russia," September 6, 2013. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 122 op. cit., fn. 95. 123 George W. Bush: "Directive on Arctic Region Policy," January 9, 2009. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.


31 | P a g e

However, the U.S. is already preparing itself for another alternative energy boom resulting from

multi-decade investments coming to fruition; genetically enhanced biofuels.

Case Study: Genetically Enhanced Biofuels

The 70s are a key area of interest when looking for government investment in renewable

energy technologies. The 1973 oil crisis was a wake-up call for the Nixon administration,

revealing the potential scarcity of oil, as well as its ability to suddenly increase in price, greatly

hindering the American economy’s ability to fuel itself. Thus, President Nixon launched Project

Independence, which would eventually lead to the establishment of the Department of Energy by

the Carter administration, pulling together the functions of existing programs such as the Federal

Energy Administration and the Energy Research and Development Administration. Among its

renewable energy policies were technology development, R&D partnerships with industry, and

long-term research.124 Yet, before the energy crisis, Nixon had already established the Biological

Research Program, which was the product of the dismantling of the Biological Warfare

Program.125

During WWII, the United States was heavily invested in the research of biological

weapons, going so far as to even test potential weapons on human subjects.126 In order to

continue research in the fields of biotechnology, the Biological Research Program claimed to

convert all their weapons research into research of noble applications such as health and energy,

with no connection to military applications.127 Of these applications, the potential for agricultural

biotechnology was recognized as having the most potential, due to the United States’ vast wealth

124 Carl E. Behrens and Richard E. Rowberg. “RL30307: Department of Energy: Programs and Reorganization Proposals,” National Library for the Environment. (September 17, 1999). 125 Shelly Hurt. “A Hidden American Industrial Strategy: Biotechnology as a Source of Alternative Energy,” Annual International Studies Association Convention. (April 3, 2013). 126 Susan B. Martin, “The Role of Biological Weapons in international Politics: The Real Military Revolution,” Journal of Strategic Studies vol. 25, no. 1 (2002): 63-98. 127 op. cit., fn. 125.


32 | P a g e

in farmland. Nixon, in a 1971 radio address, stressed the benefits of the American position of

agricultural strength, which put it at a distinct advantage over other countries unable to feed their

people.128 As he must have recognized then, and the giant DuPont Industrial Biosciences claims

now, the combination of the U.S.’s vast resources in biotechnology, combined with its

agricultural land, can benefit the United States not only in food production, but also in health,

energy, and the environment. In a report sent to Ted Wackler, Chief of Staff of the Office of

Science and Technology Policy, DuPont claimed that in order to achieve the growth necessary to

meet these ambitious goals, “government R&D investment and development support is vital.”129

Biotechnology’s potential as an alternative fuel source can be found in its application

towards biomass. Early calls for investment in this developing technology can be found in a 1980

OTA report, calling for government policy to further developments in the production of energy

through biological processes. They cited many sources of biomass fuel; through forestry,

agriculture, wastes, and unconventional production of oils and hydrocarbons. Investments were

made to develop technologies which could biologically enhance plant matter yields, as well as

investments in technologies to make the energy conversion process more efficient.130 This idea is

not unique to the U.S., as Argentina, whose biofuel production has been quickly growing,

utilizes GMO enhanced soy.131 A major advantage of energy coming from plants instead of fossil

fuels is the potential for it to be produced on a massive scale, with the energy coming from

photosynthesis, and ultimately from the renewable resources of the sun’s rays.132 In 2013, the

128 Richard Nixon. “Radio Address: ‘A Salute to Agriculture’” (May 2, 1971), Public Papers. 129 DuPont. “Re: Request for Information: Building a 21st Century Bioeconomy,” (December 6, 2011 130 Office of Technology Assessment. “Energy from Biological Processes,” (July 1980). 131 Janssen, Rainer, and Dominik Damian Rutz. "Sustainability of biofuels in Latin America: Risks and opportunities." Energy Policy 39, no. 10 (2011): 5717-5725. 132 Somerville, Chris. "Biofuels - Status and Prospects." Speech, Physics of Sustainable Energy III from Energy Biosciences Institute, Berkeley, March 8, 2014.


33 | P a g e

Department of Defense awarded multiple contracts in efforts to produce biofuel at less than $4

per gallon by 2016.133

Europe, the world leader in biofuel production, is also looking into the use of genetically

engineered plants to increase production. For example, in 2007, France conducted field trials of

genetically modified poplars for bio energy production.134 In early 2014, the U.K. will begin

growing GM plants in open fields that produce seeds packed with fish oils, which can be used for

biofuel.135 Additionally, Spanish researchers have developed genetically modified tobacco

plants, which provide a biofuel that is not a food-crop, and help tobacco-producing regions to

find new demand where previous trends had put the industry in jeopardy.136 These modifications

increase tobacco leaf starch production by 700 percent, and fermentable sugars by 500

percent.137

Despite its constraints in energy supply, and eagerness to produce new sources of

alternative energy, the European Union has strict policies concerning the use of genetically

modified organisms. The EU operates under a precautionary approach when it comes to GMO

approval. This means European authorities require extensive research into the health effects of

various GMO products before approving their use. This contrasts the U.S.’s policy, which allows

production of GMOs until claims are raised of potential harmful effects, at which point

133 Mike Saccone, "Udall: Department of Defense Biofuel Contracts an Important Step Toward Energy Security," Mark Udall, United States Senator for Colorado, (May 29, 2013). 134 D. Glass Associates, Inc.. "European Regulations Affecting the Use of Modified Organisms in Biofuel Production." Advanced Biotechnology for Biofuels. (accessed March 18, 2014). 135 Carrington, Damian. "Nothing fishy about this genetically modified biofuel." The Hindu. (accessed February 18, 2014). 136 Tobacco Reporter. "Moving forward with tobacco as biofuel." Tobacco Reporter. (accessed January 24, 2014). 137 Sapp, Meghan. "Spanish researcher boosts ethanol production capacity from GMO tobacco." Biofuels Digest. (accessed January 24, 2014).


34 | P a g e

investigations begin.138 Syngenta’s GMO corn for ethanol perfectly illustrates the rigor of

Europe’s procedures. After seven years of approval seeking by Syngenta for their ethanol

feedstock GMO product, the European Food Safety Authority closed the case, claiming the

company failed to provide sufficient data, despite the lack of evidence proving any harmful

effects.139

Although Europe produces the most biodiesel, the United States produces more ethanol

for biofuel than the second ranked Brazil and all of Europe combined.140 In terms of biotech

crops, the EU has so far planted 160 million hectares. The U.S. leads the world, having planted

69 million hectares in just 2011 alone.141 In the Energy independence and Security Act of 2007,

President George W. Bush outlined how five times the amount of biofuels used in 2007 would be

required to be used by fuel producers in 2022. The purpose of pursuing such hefty goals is to

diversify energy supplies and to reduce dependence on oil.142 Genetic engineering is allowing

plants used for this purpose to be larger, germinate faster, and be tolerant to drought, freeze, and

marginal soils.143

In his Executive Order 13132 – Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and

Bioenergy, President Bill Clinton continued the tradition of stressing the importance of private

138 Lieberman, Sarah, and Tim Gray. "The World Trade Organization's Report on the EU's Moratorium on Biotech Products: The Wisdom of the US Challenge to the EU in the WTO." Global Environmental Politics 8, no. 1 (2008): 33-52. 139 Sapp, Meghan. "Europe fails to approve Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol." Biofuels Digest. (accessed January 24, 2014). 140 op. cit., fn. 132. 141 Saidak, Thomas. "160M hectares of biotech crops now planted in EU: report." Biofuels Digest. (accessed March 24, 2013). 142 George W. Bush: "Remarks on Signing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007," December 19, 2007. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 143 Rath, Katja. "The Biofuel's Trojan Horse: GMOs and their regulation." Lecture, Biofuel Workshop from IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, Tarragona, December 15, 2009.


35 | P a g e

and public sector partnership in the development of cutting edge technology.144 The Department

of Energy undertook the Human Genome Project in 1989, working to identify all the

approximately 20,500 genes in human DNA. Although its partnership with the National Institute

of Health gives the impression that the project is purely for medical research purposes, a main

goal of the program was to transfer related technologies to the private sector, which helped spur

the current revolution in biotechnology.145 Genetic biotechnology has been applied in the

medical field, as well as in food, with many of those advances leading the way for application in

the field of energy. Through the transfer of technology back and forth between sectors, the

Department of Energy ensured that the Human Genome Project would ultimately help promote

the DOE’s founding goal; secure energy independence.

The government sponsored Human Genome Project finished ahead of schedule, with the

complete sequencing finishing in June 2000.146 The quickness with which this daunting task was

accomplished is due in large part to a similar effort by private biotech company Celera

Genomics.147 Thanks to private and public sector partnership, great strides were made in the

identification of genes in the genome. By studying genes, scientists have been able to make

connections between them and certain diseases, including cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia,

Huntington’s chorea, and Tay-Sachs disorder. With rapid advances underway, some scholars

144 William J. Clinton: "Executive Order 13134 - Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy," August 12, 1999. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 145 U.S. Department of Energy. "Human Genome Project Information." Human Genome Project . http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/index.shtml (accessed March 21, 2014). 146 Fukuyama, Francis. Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnological revolution. [Reprinted ed. New York, NY: Picador, 2002. 147 White House, “Response to Request for Information: "Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting from Federally Funded Research,"” Prudence S. Adler, Association of Research Libraries, Washington DC, (January 8, 2012).


36 | P a g e

predict the possibility of genetically engineered babies in the near future, where children can be

given traits that parents find “preferable.”148

In addition to medical advances, genetic biotechnology is commonly used in food

agriculture. An example is Bt corn, a genetically modified organism which produces its own

insecticide. Similarly, Roundup Ready soybeans are resistant to weed-control herbicides, and

thus allow farmers to spray chemicals indiscriminately. These crops dominate U.S. agriculture,

and are developed by Monsanto, the world leader in genetically modified organisms.149

Monsanto claims that due to its products being widely used by U.S. farmers, problems of food

security in the 21st century will be solved.150

In addition to its involvement in GMO foods, Monsanto is contributing to the use of

GMOs for biofuels. Mendel Biotechnology, looking to sell GMO soy to U.S. farmers, was

helped by Monsanto in making a regulatory petition to the USDA. In one the last hurdles before

approval, Mendel, with Monsanto’s assistance, is looking for the company’s patented genes to be

used for energy crops.151 Monsanto has maintained a strong involvement in biofuels, including

their Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Dr. Robert Fraley speaking at the

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ Transportation Biofuels Conference.152

The Energy and Natural Resource Committee frequently reaches out to Monsanto for help in

making biofuel production as productive as possible.153

148 op. cit., fn. 146 149 Hirschler, Ben, and Kate Kelland. "Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism." Reuters: Ed UK 20 (2012). 150 The world according to Monsanto. National Film Board of Canada, 2008. 151 Biofuels Digest. "Monsanto files for pre-launch USDA OK on soybean trait." Biofuels Digest. (accessed March 1, 2014). 152 U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, “Biofuel Conference Details,” (January 31, 2007). 153 U.S. Senate, “S. 987 - the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act of 2007," Bob Dinneen, Renewable Fuels Association, (April 12, 2007).


37 | P a g e

The United States is heavily invested in securing energy independence, which provides a

myriad of geopolitical benefits. Biofuels are a major component of this plan, and the government

is working with private businesses and universities to spur research and development to create

technology that will help reach these goals. The University of Rhode Island has received millions

of dollars in appropriations to research the genetic traits of switchgrass, which can be engineered

into a productive source of fuel.154 The Energy Frontier Research Center at Penn State University

received $2-5 million annually for five years to focus on increasing knowledge of the physical

structures of bio-polymers in plant cell walls, providing a basis for improving biomass to fuel

conversion. This is done by combining molecular, genetic, and nano-materials engineering.155

Additionally, the Committee of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry announced how Monsanto

and Pioneer have been partnering with universities to study the genetic capabilities of some

plants to grow in and extract energy from seawater. Work is being done to harness the ability to

transfer this trait to biofuel plants, and field hearings before the U.S. senate state that “This is not

pie in the sky. This is research that is happening right now.”156 Finally, Chris Somerville of the

Energy Biosciences Institute at UC Berkeley suggests the U.S. commit to growing genetically

engineered miscanthus instead of corn, as the net energy yield of miscanthus is four times the

amount yielded by corn ethanol, thus being a more efficient use of American farmland.157

The strength of American innovation is partnership with the military. Energy

technologies with dual-use military potential are traded between military and commercial

sectors, building upon each-other’s technological advancements and needs. A potential dual-use

154 Jack Reed. "Reed Secures Nearly $1.5 Million to Fuel URI's Alternative Energy Research." Jack Reed US Senator for Rhode Island. (accessed March 3, 2014). 155 "Casey Applauds Funding for Biofuel Research at Penn State." Robert P. Casey, Jr.. (accessed March 1, 2014). 156 Expanding the Role of Biofuels for America: Field Hearing Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, September 1, 2009 157 op. cit., fn. 146


38 | P a g e

energy technology is aviation biofuels.158 When President Obama spoke to an audience at

Georgetown University in 2011, he not only spoke of the potential biofuels had in domestic

transportation, but revealed that by 2016, the Air Force was planning to get half of their domestic

energy for alternative sources, and biofuel development with the private sector is a large part of

this plan.159 Predicting increased energy burdens by the military, the Department of Defense has

labeled the development of a less burdensome energy strategy as “crucial.”160 President Obama,

when speaking about advances in biofuel technology, religiously acknowledges the importance it

has on the military, and national security. When speaking to the Argonne National Laboratory in

Lemont, Illinois, he reminded the audience that “For military officials—like General Paul

Kelley, a former Commandant of the Marine Corps—this is about national security. Our reliance

on oil makes us way too dependent on other parts of the world, many of which are very

volatile.”161 The geopolitical aspects of alternative energy are not lost on the commander in

chief.

In addition to increased R&D spending going towards the development of biotechnology

for energy, the technique of patenting these innovative technologies gained a primary role in

their development, as can be seen in the 1970 Plant Variety protection Act. During this decade,

advances in molecular biology were protected via new patent laws, in order to retain the

investments made by the government within the confines of the United States’ industries. As a

result, biotechnological research in crop agriculture began to increase in its share of private

investment of all agricultural research, as the potential to biologically enhance plants grew as an

158 op. cit., fn. 84. 159 The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. Remarks by the President on America’s Energy Security. March 30, 2011. 160 Buchanan, Scott C. Energy and Force Transformation. NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV WASHINGTON DC INST FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES, 2006. 161 Barack Obama: "Remarks at Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois," March 15, 2013. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.


39 | P a g e

exciting new field.162 To further such advances, the U.S. continues to push for international

patent laws, through advocating for the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organization, ensuring that domestic

patents are recognized worldwide. When U.S. scientists discover genes that can be used to

generate energy, cure diseases, or strengthen food, these genes are often patented as intellectual

property, protecting it from unsolicited use by competing nations and companies.163

In the past, international gene patenting has resulted in controversy. In the case of the

neem tree, W.R. Grace and Company obtained U.S. patents over neem-based products, using its

genetic material to make insecticide. However, Indian cultures had been utilizing neem and its

medicinal uses long before the patenting, and felt the West was committing “bioprospecting.”164

Although western countries had developed laws in respect to intellectual property rights, such

laws were not universally respected, and ownership of gene patents became a hotly debated

topic, with many similar examples throughout recent history. As genetic engineering continues to

increase in use, an international system must be established and agreed upon, in order to move

forward in the oncoming bio-based economy.

As natural gas is used as a bridge fuel from petroleum to renewables, a shift is occurring

in the paradigm of energy. Robert E. Armstrong of the Center for Technology and National

Security Policy at the National Defense University, writes of how nations in the future will

demand secure access to a diverse, broad supply of genes, similar to the current demand for

petroleum. In other words, he claims the world is moving from a “petro-based” economy to a

162 Richard J. Patterson. “New Developments in Biotechnology: Patenting Life,” Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment. (January 1988). 163 Grossman, Gene, and Edwin L-C. Lai. International protection of intellectual property. No. w8704. National Bureau of economic research, 2002. 164 Warner, Jonathan B. "Using global themes to reframe the bioprospecting debate." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 13, no. 2 (2006): 645-671.


40 | P a g e

“bio-based” economy.165 Although the United States leads the globe in its capacity to

strategically combine genes to produce cutting edge products like GMO foods and bio-crops, the

United States lacks a domestic supply of diverse genes. Thus, the future geopolitics of

genetically enhanced biofuels will center on biologically rich areas, such as the Amazon in Latin

America.

As genes become the primary units of commerce in the coming bio-based economy, the

all-familiar national security priority will be to secure a reliable supply of necessary resources.

The TRIPS agreement is a large part of the U.S. strategy to secure genetic resources overseas,

calling for patents made by the United States to be respected, and intellectual property secured.

However, President Bill Clinton signed a conflicting treaty in 1993; The Biodiversity Treaty.

This treaty called for compensation to be given to under-developed nations whose resources

were used in advanced technologies abroad, giving them a share of the benefits. Although

signed, President Clinton never ratified the treaty, showing hesitance at sharing American

biotechnology, expressing similar doubts as his predecessor, President George Bush, who

claimed the technology cannot be useful “if the product of that is taken away or if the incentive

to innovate and the incentive to profit by your research is removed.”166

In order to maintain access to genetic materials, which are becoming indispensable for

the United States, the U.S. must maintain good relations with Latin American nations, who

control access to these raw materials.167 China, in its current thirst for oil, has been heavily

investing in Latin American countries like Ecuador, providing funds for drilling, oftentimes in

165 Armstrong, Robert E., and E. J. DaSilva. "From petro to agro: seeds of a new economy." Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 10, no. 1/2 (2007): 57-74. 166 George Bush: "The President's News Conference in Rio de Janeiro," June 13, 1992. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 167 op. cit., fn. 165.


41 | P a g e

biologically sensitive areas like the rainforest.168 These rainforests are crucial in terms of genetic

resources, and the United States is heavily incentivized to keep them preserved. Here, we again

see the benefits of a strengthened partnership between the U.S. and China. Through the United

States sharing shale extraction technologies with China, the Chinese can produce oil and gas

domestically, and thus would not require the fuel located under the Amazon’s surface.

Additionally, the Chinese are increasingly gaining influence in Latin American nations, and if

the United States can form a good working relationship with China, the Chinese can sway Latin

American nations in aligning their policies with those of the U.S.169

With the shift in energy sources from petroleum to biotech, geopolitical hotspots are

changing as well. With the Middle East and Russia losing relevancy due to the U.S. shale boom,

the United States will begin to focus more on Western Hemisphere energy policy, with China

overtaking the role of looking over the Middle East’s stability, and providing Europe with a

diverse supply of gas. As the U.S. looks to secure access to genetic materials from Latin

American nations, there will be a necessity in maintaining Latin American stability. This can

involve providing financial support, political guidance, or may even involve military action.170 In

the case of the latter, these may become the first conflicts to involve the use of biofuel powered

military vehicles. Overall, the relationship between the U.S. and Latin American nations will be

the major strategic priority of 21st century geopolitics, specifically in the securing of genetic

materials for GMO biofuels. Already working on this mission, President Obama stated, when

168 Roger Tissot, "Latin America's Energy Future," Inter American Development Bank, (December 2012). 169 Kevin P. Gallagher, Amos Irwin, Katherine Koleski, “The New Banks in Town: Chinese Finance in Latin America” (Inter-American Dialogue Working Paper, 2012). 170 op. cit., fn. 165.


42 | P a g e

meeting with President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, “the

relationship between Brazil and the United States has never been stronger.”171

Conclusions

The past century of energy geopolitics has been dominated by states looking to secure

access to petroleum. Many experts expected this to remain the case until oil reserve ran dry, with

the lead up being filled with conflict for the last remaining resources. However, the U.S. shale

boom is bringing about an energy revolution, with the United States becoming closer to energy

independence, a goal it has held for many decades. The goal of energy dependence is security in

resources, and not being dependent on other states for fuel, which could be used to affect

political actions. The development of unconventional oil and gas extraction techniques by the

United States, following decades of public and private sector investments, has changed the

geopolitical landscape of energy.

The U.S.’s allies in Europe have long been dependent on importing their fuel, be it

Russian natural gas or Middle Eastern oil. With the U.S. becoming a net exporter of gas,

Europeans have gained an alternative source of gas in the case of Russian conflict leading to the

cutting off of gas supply. Similarly, the market is affected by the new natural gas sources,

affecting prices for European and Middle Eastern exporters who must lower prices to remain

competitive. Yet, due to other exporters’ abilities to lower prices, the United States cannot freely

export LNG, due to the risk of being over-involved in the Eurasian gas market, relying on the

revenue to sustain the export costs. Thus, the U.S. gas revolution successfully provides the

United States with increased energy security, but does not have the international geopolitical

effects that much of the scholarly discourse expected.

171 Barack Obama: "Remarks Following a Meeting With President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil," April 9, 2012. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.


43 | P a g e

However, recent developments have revealed a paradox in American alternative energy

technology policy, with the United States looking to trade unconventional shale fuel extraction

technologies to China, who holds twice as much shale as does the U.S. This is explained by the

United States needing a powerful partner in the region, who can diversify gas supplies to Europe,

and take over the American role as enforcer of Middle Eastern stability. As China works to fulfill

its energy needs through this newfound technology, the United States will take advantage of

another groundbreaking technology, genetically engineered biofuels. In order to secure the

genetic resources necessary for this new energy source, as well as for medicine and food that

requires genes as raw material, the United States will have to focus geopolitically on the bio-

diverse hemispheric neighbors to the south, Latin America. Again, we see hidden advantages of

providing China with game changing technology, as this new partnership will allow the U.S. to

take advantage of the relations the Chinese have forged in Latin America when seeking oil

underneath the Amazon. The ability to extract fuel from shale will allow China to leave Latin

American resources alone, and thus preserve the rainforests where genetic resources lie.

In order to take advantage of these new technologies, the United States must enact policy

which preserves their growth and combat controversies that are sure to arise. For example,

hydraulic fracturing technology has raised controversy domestically, with claims that the process

is having a negative environmental impact on water resources. To ensure the continued use of

this technology that is making all of these geopolitical developments possible, policies and

regulations must be enacted and enforced that ensures an environmental catastrophe does not

occur. Such a disaster would bring a halt to fracking, and thus waste the decades of government

and private sector investment. At a 2011 speech in Georgetown University, President Obama

made similar remarks, noting that he “asked Secretary Chu, my Energy Secretary, to work with


44 | P a g e

other agencies, the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts to improve the safety

of this process.”172 Additional controversies that must be addressed include the international

protest that is sure to arise from the use of GMO technology. For example, protestors organized

in St. Louis in January 2014, part of a growing movement called “Occupy Monsanto.”173 The

U.S. must find answers to lingering questions about GMO health effects, as well as questions on

how best to deal with the conflicting ideas of the TRIPS agreement and The Biodiversity Treaty.

Ultimately, all of these geopolitically beneficial technologies were the result of decades

of government initiated investment, with the burdens shared by the private sector. The United

States boasts both the largest private and public sector markets, and their R&D budgets are

unmatched. Through long-term, forward thinking investments, and transfer of technologies

between military and commercial use, the United States maintains technological superiority. As

these alternative energy technologies come to fruition, the United States continues to invest, and

more groundbreaking developments are sure to follow. The coming century will continue to be

dominated by the United States’ military, economic, and technological superiority, directly

refuting claims of American decline.

172 op. cit., fn. 159. 173 Cummins, Ronnie. "Democracy or Corporatocracy? The choice is ours.." The Ecologist. html (accessed March 20, 2014).

Documents

Power in the Future