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.
64
Bahree, 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
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

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

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

Power in the Future

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (6)

Ähnlich wie Power in the Future

Ähnlich wie Power in the Future (20)

Power in the Future