Vladimir Putin isn’t persuaded by Nancy Pelosi’s green-energy dreams
By Merrill Matthews
Democrats and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have made it clear that they want to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, even as countries that could pose a serious threat to U.S. security and the economy double down on their efforts to extract and control fossil fuels.
Upon being reelected speaker, Pelosi claimed she would focus on what she called the “climate crisis” as “an economic decision for America’s global preeminence in green technology; a security decision to keep us safe.”
By contrast, Russian President Vladimir Putin, unencumbered by an environmental vision of a carbon-free economy, is engaged in a global effort to unite authoritarian regimes with significant fossil fuel reserves.
Putin envisions a kind of “Dark OPEC” that controls enough of the world’s crude oil and natural gas to control supply, dictate prices, and engage in political mischief.
For example, Putin has been casting Venezuela’s strongman President Nicolas Maduro a financial lifeline in return for a significant share of several Venezuelan oil and natural gas fields. In addition, Venezuela has reportedly signed over a major share of Citgo — a U.S.-based but Venezuela-owned oil refiner, pipeline transporter, and marketer — as collateral for Russian-provided loans.
And Putin supplied Caracas with two Tu-160 supersonic bombers, which seems odd given that the country can’t feed its people, keep the electricity on, or even supply toilet paper. Venezuela’s problem is people fleeing, not countries threatening to take over.
Russia has also become heavily involved in the Middle East, especially in ensuring that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad remains in power, and providing financial and technical assistance to Iran’s, Iraq’s, and other countries’ oil and natural gas industries.
The result is a critical swath of the oil and gas-rich Middle East under the influence of Russia, which could pose a number of future problems for world energy markets.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. is now the top crude oil producer, with 15.6 million barrels per day. Longtime U.S. ally Saudi Arabia comes in second with 12 million bpd.
However, Russia produces 11.2 million bpd, Iran 4.7 million, and Iraq 4.5 million. Add in Venezuela’s 2.3 million bpd and you have 22.7 million barrels per day — enough to manipulate world markets if Russia and its strongman-cohorts choose to do so.
And Saudi Arabia just announced plans to cut crude oil exports to 7.1 million bpd, down from 7.9 million last November.
Given those evolving geopolitical forces, it is absolutely critical that the U.S. not just maintain its drive for energy independence but seek energy dominance.
We are now the world’s largest crude oil and natural gas producer. And while the U.S. produces more natural gas than it consumes, it hasn’t reached that point with respect to crude oil. We are still about 4 million barrels per day short of self-sufficiency.
Speaker Pelosi’s notion that “green technology” will keep us safe is a throwback to the mid-1970s, when U.S. oil and gas production had seemingly “peaked,” leaving us vulnerable to OPEC countries wanting to punish us for supporting Israel.
U.S. security and the economy face numerous existential threats, and we must have the energy security to meet them. Those Russian Tu-160 supersonic bombers weren’t plug-ins, and China didn’t send its lunar rover to the moon with solar power.
Renewable energy may play a bigger role in the future, but it won’t make us “safe” — and neither will Pelosi’s green-energy dreams.
Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “Dark OPEC: Vladimir Putin isn’t persuaded by Nancy Pelosi’s green-energy dreams”
PacifiCorp and Rocky Mountain Power miss renewable energy opportunities
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://suindependent.com/vladimir-putin-dark-opec-green-energy/&media=https://suindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Dark-OPEC-Vladimir-Putin-isnt-persuaded-by-Nancy-Pelosis-green-energy-dreams.jpg&description=Putin envisions a "Dark OPEC" that controls enough crude oil and natural gas to control supply, dictate prices, and engage in political mischief.){kind=link}