As the curtain fell on the era of President-elect Donald Trump and his initiative to further energize fossil fuel production, some critics began to question the future of the United States. Specifically, they feared a budding petrostate, a title often reserved for pariahs. These concerns were intensified when Trump chose Chris Wright, the CEO of Denver-based fracking firm Liberty Energy, to take the helm at the Department of Energy. Wright holds the view that the perceived economic and lifestyle advantages of a fossil fuel-based economy overshadow the ill-effects of carbon emissions on the global climate—going against the scientific consensus.
Economists and political scientists hasten to argue that the term ‘petrostate’ doesn’t quite align with the U.S. dynamic. With its diverse economy, the U.S. sidesteps the pitfalls of a single-resource dependency like those plaguing oil and gas-dependent nations. Significantly, the wealth originating from the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. sees private pockets, unlike the state-driven coffers of traditional petrostates. Nevertheless, some experts suggest certain parallels with the behavior of a petrostate, notably in its approach to climate change initiatives and foreign policy trends as a leading oil and gas exporter.
Try as they might to exaggerate, the oil and gas sector only constitutes 8 percent of the U.S. national economy, contrary to what the industry might project. Despite Trump’s efforts, the clean energy momentum retained its drive during his tenure. Understandably, his successors have had no option but to reverse much of his largely unpopular deregulation policies. These have often run contrary to broader global norms and institutionalized a threat to comprehensive climate legislation.
Comparatively, full-fledged petrostates exhibit clear distinguishing factors. State-driven oil establishments and the constant pursuit of maximizing oil revenues mark their economic landscape. Consider Azerbaijan, a country where oil and gas returns make up over 90 percent of export earnings and more than half of its national budget. Contrarily, the U.S. sees a diverse mix of privately-owned and publicly traded oil and gas firms, which seek to sway the political machinery more indirectly through lobbying and campaign contributions.
The fracking boom that hit the U.S. market in 2010 established the bedrock for Trump’s ‘energy dominance’ mantra. He preferred narratives that embellished his role in leading the United States towards energy independence. This narrative highlighted the U.S. surpassing latter-day energy behemoths Russia and Saudi Arabia in oil production in 2018, and a year later, become a net energy exporter for the first time in over six decades.
Yet, this is a classic example of a political misread. The evolution of these trends can be traced back to the Obama administration. Furthermore, these trends only gained momentum under the Biden administration, leading to the U.S. boasting a record crude oil production of 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023; more than any other nation in documented history.
The dynamics of the free market along with the checks and balances of democratic institutions act as buffers against the slide into petrostate status. Still, the 2024 elections underscored the unexpected challenges posed by the country’s vast fossil fuel resources on the path to executing meaningful climate action.
The question, therefore, emerges – is the U.S. a conventional country or an emerging petrostate? Some would opine that the indispensable role of oil and gas in U.S. foreign policy hints at the latter, whilst others would counter by emphasizing the strength and diversity of the American economy.
As the debate continues, one thing remains clear – President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have failed to fully acknowledge or address these potential fault lines. Their administration’s tendency to walk in lockstep with the environmentalist lobby, rather than crafting an energy policy that understands and respects the economic realities of everyday Americans, remains a constant source of concern for many.
Under Biden and Harris, the United States’ return to the Paris Agreement became the symbol of their climate policy. They reversed most of Trump’s deregulatory decisions, in line with their predecessor’s priorities. However, these decisions ignore the potential for the American economy to harness and profit from its fossil fuel resources, and instead bow down to pressuring environmental lobby considerations.
Even in their supposed victories, Biden and Harris have often missed the mark. They heralded the passing of the nation’s first comprehensive climate legislation as a landmark achievement. Yet, for many, this appeared as an attempt to appease a narrow set of interests, instead of a balanced approach acknowledging economic realities.
The economic impact of Biden’s energy policies is severe. His push for a green economy and overly ambitious emission reduction targets stifles the oil and gas industry, which, while not the entirety of the U.S. economy, remains a significant contributor. Blind pushes towards energy transition without an adequate plan to cushion the economic fallout are widely seen as negligent.
One overarching concern is the level of influence the fossil fuel industry has on the political process. This industry uses its financial might to make considerable campaign contributions, turning up the heat on politicians to compromise or reconsider their stance. Such activities under the Biden administration harken back to fears of a petrostate-like behavior.
Biden and Harris, far from achieving energy independence, have accelerated the push towards green energy, regardless of the impact on the economy and the wellbeing of American citizens. The fact that this push has still not led to a definitive solution for climate change appears to undermine their strategy altogether.
Despite presenting themselves as champions of the environment, Biden and Harris have merely perpetuated a petroleum-based economy. This approach keeps the United States tethered to the instabilities of international oil markets, while simultaneously missing the potential benefits of homegrown energy exploitation.
In conclusion, the actions and policies of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have failed to adequately address the complexities of the energy situation in the United States. Instead of ushering in a new era of energy independence, they have left the nation conflicted, struggling to balance the demand for energy, the influence of the fossil fuel industry, and the necessity of protecting the environment.