energy policy

The coronavirus pandemic has had some unexpected benign effects (including a large drop in air pollution and levels of nitrogen oxides in UK and elsewhere, and a smaller drop in global carbon emissions), which raises the problem of how to sustain and build on these unexpected gains. These gains could easily be lost when economies and road transport return to something like their previous condition. But if governments and industries are inspired to reduce automobile emissions to match the levels of the spring of 2020, gains such as these could become recurrent, and many more lives could be saved. Further, if (with greater effort) carbon emissions could remain reduced, then future generations could be saved from sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and even from the spread of tropical diseases. Such a prevention of disease would be an ironic but welcome gain from a pandemic.

Access and control of Energy has not only been historically instrumental in the sociopolitical and economic shaping of nations, but also central to the global world of politics, systems, and geopolitics. Energy resources of the Russian Federation have made the country more influential in world politics. Energy and geopolitical issues are especially important to modern People’s Republic of China as a tool for the country’s economic growth. Since the mid twentieth century, both countries have attempted to establish mutual energy cooperation as a key component of their strategic alliance based on producer-consumer needs and the Good Neighborly Treaty. Nonetheless, since the end of the cold war in the 1990s, the energy negotiations have been long and unproductive because both nations are on both sides of the energy market. For the Russian Federation, revenue from its oil and gas sector traditionally makes up a large portion of its budget. Thus, Russia is unwilling to make concessions and involve China in its major upstream energy projects. In the interim, China also seeks to diversify its oil and gas resources and imports for its own political dependency, growth, and to prevent countries from overreliance on one single source and market. Issues such as pricing and the provisions of agreements have made the energy relations between the two countries more complex than the relations between producers and consumers. Despite the two countries being neighbors, their relations have not been developed.

The United States’ foreign policy is influenced by specific theoretical logics that also shape its energy policies. These logics play a crucial role in understanding the country's approach to energy strategies. In this article, the authors analyze the alignment between the energy policies of the Trump and Biden administrations and the broader theoretical underpinnings of American international policy. The authors contend that the theoretical logics that drive US foreign policy has significant implications beyond foreign policy, affecting various domains, including energy. In this context, the article seeks to answer the main question, "What theoretical frameworks have shaped the energy policy of the United States from 2017-2023, during the Trump and Biden administrations?" It contends that Donald Trump’s energy policy was driven by a quest for hegemony predicated on the logic of supremacy. Conversely, Joe Biden’s energy policy embraced a multilateral orientation based on liberal internationalism and integrated environmental and climate concerns with America’s economic aspirations. The article is structured as follows: the introduction sets the context for the analysis, while the literature review examines the relevant theoretical literature. The conceptual framework section outlines the authors' theoretical approach. The subsequent sections analyze the energy policies of the Trump and Biden administrations, respectively. The authors then identify points of continuity between the two administrations before concluding.