Over on Curblog, Tom posted an interview with Henry Lee. The purpose of the interview was to ask Kennedy School faculty "what kind of policies the president elected in 2004 should pursue." Henry Lee got questions on energy policy. The purpose of this post is to demonstrate that Henry Lee, despite his lofty position, doesn't really know what he is talking about.
Q1: What are the most critical factors the president must weigh when creating energy policy in the 21st Century?
Mr. Lee breaks it down to two factors: 1) Energy security (particularly oil and gas). 2) Climate change. Unfortunately, Mr. Lee does not have an original bone in is body because he stole answer number one from the mouths of the speakers at the recent Iraqi oil security talk at KSG, which Mr. Lee moderator (or possibly from here). The second is a taken from Dr. John Holdren, the American expert on energy and climate change, with whom Mr. Lee co-teaches a KSG course. This stance is not all bad. Supporting views held by others who are more familiar and experience with an issue than you is generally good practice, but the guy needs some footnotes.
Q: How should the president in 2005 respond to the threats posed by global warming?
Mr. Lee says we need to turn into "serious policy mode." It doesn't mean Kyoto, but it does mean "international negotiation". It's no longer "research mode" but it is "developing energy technologies". Aside from these contradictions, he provides a factoid which he thinks may help convince people to get into "serious policy mode."
I think one of the big problems that people miss is that we are inevitably going to have a doubling of carbon concentrations in our atmosphere. The question now is can we avoid a tripling. You might be able to say we can live with a doubling, but very few people think we can adjust easily to a tripling.
While doubling and tripling all over myself, I can't help but notice that he once again needs footnotes to Dr. Holdren. Nowhere in his answer is a real answer. In international negotiations, who needs to come to the table? Will trading schemes, like JI, exist? How do you motivate the voting base and Congress to move on such items? How do you establish CO2 reduction rules without "putting economic needs aside"? This is not his last non-answer.
Q: How should the president respond to further OPEC production cuts and escalating oil prices?
Mr. Lee breaks down the drivers of oil prices into three categories: OPEC, out-dated U.S. refinery system, and forecast by businesses of a price decrease. The last comment is interesting, but the second, which we discussed here, I thought affected the price of gas more than the price of oil (correct me if I'm wrong here). Perhaps just a slip up for Mr. Lee.
But again, no answer to the question. Congratulations, you've identified the drivers, now what policies would you implement to fix these?
Q: How can the next administration better promote the development of alternative fuels?
His basic answer is increase R&D spending. He also cites that high natural gas prices provide a natural market incentive of alternatives. So maybe his policy suggestion is to not mess with the market, which is fine by me. He doesn't provide any specifics about where R&D money should go. He says R&D plummetted, but doesn't break it down to which funding fell and why. So how do you promote alternative fuels? Throw money at it. Oye and Branscomb would have a field day refuting that idea.
Q: Efforts are currently underway to revise policies ensuring the reliability of the nation’s electricity grid. What steps should the president do in this regard?
Mr. Lee says transmission. We need to "institutionally change the way we coordinate the transmission of electricity" (i.e. FERC's Standard Market Design) while simultaneously investing in transmission. Who needs to invest in the transmission system is still unclear. And for those familiar with the topic, this is the main reason change is so hard. If you can't address who will finance or how financing will occur, you can't solve the transmission issue. Mr. Lee provides no hints along those lines, so to speak.
I don't mean any disrespect to Mr. Lee. I did, however, expect serious engagement of the issues. Instead, his responses were comparable to that of a politician: talking loud and saying nothing. I just expect more from someone who TEACHES energy policy as one of the nations most respected policy schools. I don't know which I'm more disappointed in, Mr. Lee or Harvard.
Recent Comments