American Energy Policy: Going Against The Market Trends
Even without any concern for climate change, market forces are now enough to drive corporations and societies to expand the use of alternatives to hydrocarbons. Interesting and lucrative breakthroughs are happening in the sectors of energy production and storage. As an American Patriot, I would love for American scientists and engineers to be the ones leading the global pivot to nuclear fusion, a long-term goal as recently stated by our new Energy Secretary. As Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stated at CERAWeek 2025, 'Energy is the enabler of everything that we do. Everything. Energy is not A sector of the economy; it is the sector that enables every other sector. Energy is life.' The next question then would be how to secure our energy supply. Secretary Wright recognizes that nuclear power, both fission and fusion, will be the production methods of the future. He even claims that an American fusion plant could be running during this administration. How can we meet our needs in this transition?
For our friends and allies in Germany, solar combined with batteries is now more cost effective than gas powered power plants. Advances in recent years have made solar panels one of the cheapest and most versatile sources of electricity. Recent advances in battery technology are addressing the intermittency of variable renewable energy like wind and solar, while nuclear expansion is a focal point for advanced economies. We're seeing an inflection point in global energy generation, where for many nations, coal and oil are no longer the cheapest options. Natural gas will be necessary for a time, but it will be a component in a diverse energy landscape. It's clear that while renewables expand, we will still use some hydrocarbons.
The IEA's World Energy Outlook estimates fossil fuel use will peak globally by 2030. In 2024, solar and wind generated more electricity than coal in both America and the EU. The green technology revolution is happening, and it's the most capitalized and advanced economies that are investing in clean technologies. They're the future of the global economy, and purely from a technological dominance and competitiveness perspective, we as a nation need to maintain the edge on advanced research. The future of energy production, storage and transmission are central to the future of our national security and economic stability.
As the energy think tank Ember observes, building new infrastructure for fossil fuels is like renting. The fuel costs will be continuous and higher than maintenance on clean energy infrastructure. Clean energy in a productive investment like buying a house, one big purchase, a pay off point, and then pure return on investment. In this instance, the investment can be recovered in a year.
Expanding into renewables doesn't mean the immediate abandonment of all fossil fuels. Strategic petroleum reserves will continue to be important, and other hydrocarbons have specific uses that can't be immediately replaced. Yet, this reasonable premise is different from the idea that we can't, or shouldn't, further diversify into economically viable renewables. We realists can agree that we want to keep using natural gas and other fossil fuels for where it's necessary, but for cost considerations and energy security, we don't need to make them the first choice at every turn. Nor should we cease research into future potential alternatives.
Innovation will continue to be key in developing technologies and answering some questions, but to say that there's no hope for green technology is false. As we continue to work toward this inevitability, why can't we regain the status of global innovators, responsible for the upcoming breakthroughs in efficient power grids, batteries, direct ocean capture, or any of the other societally beneficial and lucrative technologies that will be produced, refined, and globally expanded over the next few decades?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump says deal for ceasefire in Gaza is closer after Israel agrees on terms
CAIRO — U.S. President Donald Trump says Israel has agreed on terms for a new 60-day ceasefire with Hamas and that Washington would work with both sides during that time to try to end more than 20 months of war in Gaza. Neither side has accepted the proposal announced Tuesday by Trump, who has admonished Hamas that if the militant group does not buy into the offer, its prospects will get worse. It's not clear what conditions Israel agreed to. The efforts to reach a truce are unfolding in the wake of powerful Israeli and American strikes on nuclear sites in Iran, which has long supported Hamas, and just days before Trump is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. Here's a look at the situation and the challenges it might present. Details of the proposed ceasefire are just beginning to emerge. But rather than being completely new, the potential deal seems to be a somewhat modified version of a framework proposed earlier this year by Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff. Trump said Tuesday in a social media post that Qatar and Egypt have been working on the details and would deliver a final proposal to Hamas. An Egyptian official involved in the ceasefire talks told The Associated Press that the proposal calls for Hamas to release 10 more hostages during the two-month period — eight on the first day and two on the final day. During that period, Israel would withdraw troops from some parts of Gaza and allow badly needed aid into the territory. The war began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking roughly 250 hostages. The group is believed to still have some 50 hostages, with fewer than half of them thought to be alive. The Egyptian official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters, said a sticking point over how aid would be distributed had been resolved with Israel. He said both sides have agreed that the United Nations and the Palestinian Red Crescent would lead aid operations and that the Israeli- and U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund would also continue to operate. The unraveling of Iran's regional network of proxies, capped by the blow inflicted on Iran during the recent 12-day war with Israel, has left Hamas weaker and more isolated in the region. Iran was a key backer of the militant group, but its influence has waned, and it's now preoccupied with its own problems. At the same time, Trump has made it clear to Israel that he wants to see the Israel-Hamas war end soon. While he has been supportive of Netanyahu, Trump had tough words for Israel in the opening hours of last week's ceasefire with Iran, when he pressured Israel to scale back its response to an Iranian missile attack. That could help persuade Hamas to embrace a deal. A diplomat briefed on the talks said there is now a 'big opportunity' to reach an agreement. 'The indications we're getting are people are ready.' He said Trump's harsh talk toward Israel has 'given a bit of confidence to Hamas' that the U.S. will guarantee any future deal and prevent a return to fighting. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing behind-the-scenes diplomatic contacts. The Egyptian official said Israel has not yet agreed to a proposal to withdraw its forces to positions held in early March after a previous ceasefire officially expired. Since then, the Israeli army has seized large swaths of Gaza to put pressure on Hamas, and it's not clear whether Israel is ready to return to those same positions. An Israeli official characterized the agreement as a 60-day deal that would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a surge in humanitarian aid to the territory. The mediators and the U.S. would provide assurances about talks on ending the war, but Israel is not committing to that as part of the latest proposal, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the details of the deal with the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. The Egyptian official said Hamas will have to review the proposal with other factions before submitting an official response. One point that does seem to have been ironed out is the question of who will administer Gaza. Israel has said Hamas cannot run the territory, and the Egyptian official said the proposal would instead put Gaza under a group of Palestinians without political affiliations known as the Community Support Committee once a ceasefire is reached. Potentially complicating the effort, Netanyahu reiterated his hard-line position Wednesday, vowing that 'there will be no Hamas' following the 60-day ceasefire plan. A previous ceasefire agreed to in January established three phases, but the two sides never made it past phase one. During that time, however, there were multiple exchanges of Hamas-held hostages for prisoners held by Israel, and critical humanitarian aid was able to reach Gaza. When phase one expired on March 1, Israel sought to extend it while Hamas argued that phase two should go ahead as planned. The second phase would have compelled Hamas to release all the remaining living hostages in exchange for more Palestinian prisoners, a lasting ceasefire and a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. That was always seen as difficult, because it would have forced Israel to choose between its two main war goals — the safe return of the hostages and the annihilation of Hamas. On March 18, Israel broke the ceasefire with new airstrikes and resumed hostilities. In Gaza, residents expressed hope that this time, a ceasefire will bring an end to the war. 'We are seriously tired,' said Asmaa al-Gendy, who has been living in a tent camp in Deir al Balah with her two children. The family has been displaced and starved and endured 'every form of torture in the world.'
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The ‘big beautiful bill' would supercharge Trump's immigration crackdown. Here's how, in 6 charts.
Republicans are on the brink of handing President Trump an enormous injection of money to fund his hard-line immigration agenda. The 'big beautiful bill,' which is facing what could be its final legislative hurdle in the House of Representatives, includes roughly $170 billion in additional funding to supercharge Trump's mass deportation efforts and ramp up border security. While there are ongoing debates within the GOP over what should go in the final package, none of those disagreements have centered around immigration funding, which was virtually unchanged between the Senate and House versions of the bill. The mega-bill would empower the Trump administration to build new immigration detention facilities, hire thousands more immigration officers, construct new sections of Trump's long-promised border wall and pour billions of dollars into other aspects of immigration enforcement. Here are the details of what the bill would mean for the American immigration system. One of the signature promises of Trump's first presidential term was his pledge to build an 'impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall' across the full length of the U.S.-Mexico border. Legal challenges, logistical snags and funding shortfalls prevented him from delivering on that promise. During his first term, his administration replaced more than 400 miles worth of existing barriers, but only built 47 miles of new wall where none had existed before — at an estimated cost of $15 billion. The new bill provides more than three times that amount for an 'integrated border barrier system' that includes a plan to build 700 miles of new walls, 900 miles of barriers along the Rio Grande River, more than 600 miles of secondary barriers and an array of cutting-edge technologies to bolster the physical barriers, according to estimates from the GOP-led House Committee on Homeland Security. Since returning to the White House, Trump has mounted an unprecedented and highly controversial campaign to sweep up and deport millions of immigrants living in the U.S. So far, though, the scope of his ambitions has outstretched the logistical capacity of the agencies tasked with carrying out those orders, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is on pace so far this year to more than double the number of arrests that it made in 2024, but is still trending well short of the targets his administration has set. Deportations are up, too, but only slightly above where they were during former President Joe Biden's last year in office. One of the biggest bottlenecks slowing ICE's deportation progress is a lack of space to house all of the people they want to detain. Officially, ICE has enough money for 41,000 beds in detention centers across the country, but the agency reported it was detaining more than 59,000 people as of late last month. The bill includes $45 billion to dramatically increase ICE's detention capacity. According to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the agency's current $3.4 billion detention budget would more than double next year and gradually increase until it reaches nearly $15 billion by 2029. The bill doesn't call for ICE to build a specific number of beds, but Trump's border czar Tom Homan has said the agency will need a minimum of 100,000 beds to carry out its mass deportation plans. Some experts believe the true total could ultimately prove to be as high as 200,000. With this huge influx of funding, immigration detention would rival the federal prison system, both in terms of capacity and funding. There are currently more than 155,000 people being held in federal prisons nationwide, well above ICE's stated goal but below where some estimates fall. Thanks to a modest funding boost in the bill, the Bureau of Prisons would have an average annual budget of about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years. That would be roughly equivalent to ICE's average yearly detention funding of $9.7 billion, but dwarfed by the $14.9 billion the CBO anticipates ICE to receive in 2029. On top of the extra funding for the wall and detention facilities, the bill would also give ICE an additional $31 billion, with the bulk of that money intended to help the agency hire new enforcement officers. Right now, the agency has 6,000 people on staff dedicated to its Enforcement and Removal Operations. The bill would give ICE the resources it needs to hire 10,000 more. Another $12 billion in the bill would go to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to hire 5,000 new customs officers and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. The bill allocates $12.5 billion to support immigration enforcement efforts by state and local authorities. It would also provide $6.2 billion for border screening and surveillance technology, 'including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other innovative technologies.' The legislation would also impose new costs on immigrants hoping to be granted a legal right to stay in the U.S. Applying for asylum, which has historically been free, would now come with a $100 charge. The fee to apply for Temporary Protected Status would increase from $50 to $500, and the price of appealing a judge's immigration order would jump from $110 to $900.
Hamilton Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Lloyd Axworthy accuses Carney of taking ‘bootlicking' approach to Trump
OTTAWA - Former Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy is accusing Prime Minister Mark Carney of taking a 'bootlicking' approach to U.S. President Donald Trump at the expense of Canadian values. 'You have to be principled, you have to be tactical, you have to be pragmatic. But you also have to be tough and know what you stand for,' Axworthy said in an interview with The Canadian Press. 'Flattery is always part of the game, but you can take it to the point where you actually become unctuous.' Axworthy spoke to The Canadian Press after issuing an online broadside last Sunday against the Carney government. Axworthy, whom prime minister Jean Chrétien appointed as foreign affairs minister from 1996 to 2000, oversaw the Ottawa Treaty that banned landmines in numerous countries. He has been a prominent voice on international relations, including through advocacy with the World Refugee and Migration Council. In a blog post following the NATO summit — where alliance members agreed to Trump's demand for a massive increase in the alliance's defence spending target — Axworthy accused Carney and other world leaders of bending a knee to Trump. 'NATO now risks letting one craven, mendacious man set the tone for a strategy of unrestrained militarism,' Axworthy wrote, arguing it's dangerous to let defence policy be decided by 'the abusive, racist bullying of Donald Trump.' He also argued that the summit did not adequately push to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and instead committed alliance members to a level of defence spending that will lead to cuts to social programs and likely foreign aid. 'A pattern is now set: Trump harrumphs, we comply. What else will we quietly surrender? Cultural industries? Environmental standards, agriculture security, Arctic sovereignty?' he wrote. In the interview, Axworthy singled out NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's exchange with Trump during the NATO summit — which saw Rutte refer to the president as 'daddy' — as an 'embarrassing' moment. He also said his concerns have been further bolstered by Carney's decision to rescind the digital services tax that targeted American tech giants, as the prime minister and Trump undertake what he calls 'secret' trade negotiations with no parliamentary scrutiny. 'When do we stop pretending it's all part of some clever negotiating strategy that justifies bootlicking in hopes of tariff concessions?' he wrote in the blog post. Trump suggested in March that the U.S. might sell allies fighter jets that lack the same capabilities as those used by the U.S. military. Axworthy told The Canadian Press it's unwise to accept a situation where 'the Pentagon controls the black boxes in your airplanes and your destroyers.' Axworthy said he sees the Carney government pushing ahead with foreign policy and domestic legislation focused on economic security, while ignoring the need to invest in diplomacy to prevent conflicts and defend Canadian values abroad. Instead of solely focusing on military spending, he said Ottawa could mobilize investment and governments of various countries to have better freshwater management, because numerous countries are on track for major droughts that can lead to armed conflict. Axworthy said Carney's major-projects legislation, Bill C-5, has undercut reconciliation efforts with First Nations and the government 'ignored' Indigenous Peoples in its rush to get the bill passed. 'It's way past (just) being consulted. They have to be partners. They have to be involved. They're basically the third pillar of this country,' the former Manitoba MP said of Indigenous Peoples. 'You're going to get the machinery working, but you're going to leave a lot of roadkill along the way.' The government fast-tracked the sweeping legislation and opted against shortening the 12-week summer break to give it more study. Carney's office has not yet responded for a request for comment. The prime minister himself was extolling the virtues of Canadian democracy Tuesday. 'We find ourselves in a situation where our values are being tested by attacks on democracy and freedoms — attacks that we must resist,' Carney said in his Canada Day remarks. 'In a world that's fraught with division … we've decided not to pull apart and fight, but to come together and to build.' Axworthy noted that Carney came from a life outside politics and said that's among the reasons why he endorsed Chrystia Freeland instead of Carney in this year's Liberal leadership race. 'I don't think he's ever knocked on that door or gone to a constituency meeting until he became a leadership candidate,' he said in the interview. Axworthy repeated an idea he floated in January — that Ottawa should work with the countries Trump has talked of absorbing to mount a campaign to promote rules-based trade and peace in the Arctic. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 2, 2025.
