tv Meghan O Sullivan Windfall CSPAN October 14, 2017 9:29am-10:32am EDT
and you'll find a large archive of authors and material all of these programs are available to watch online. you're watching booktv on cbs c-span2 here's our prime time line yum soflt ware engineer ellen describes changes in technology through lens of her professional experiences. then at 7:30 yale law school professor and scott shapiro recall the 1928 paris peace act that outlawed war and signed by nearly every country in the world. at 8:30 p.m. national book award-winning award exams race, the obama presidency and the election of donald trump. and on bock tv afterwards at 10 p.m. craig shirley discusses life and political career of newt gingrich with tom davis and we wrap up our prime time programming at 11, with source ceo and found oar lyla on her
security project there. the deputy national security assistant for iraq and afghanistan and spent some time as an advisor in iraq. and has been working on this book for several years times change while you had been working on them. maybe will talk about how you decided and why did you write the book what keyed it off. >> let me begin by saying good afternoon and thank you so much for spending your lunch hour with us in a special thanks to dan for doing this. he has been a source of advice, support and inspiration as i have really moved into this world in looking at this intersection. thank you very much for that. my impetus for writing the book it's almost on reflecting after my time in iraq as to
how much the world needs to be understood by a foreign-policy lunch and the lens that understands markets. mostly i was looking at the picture from a foreign policy perspective. a great example that i would like to give is that the times when i traveled with secretary rice to try to convince them i tended to look at that and actually seems to be working now. it was interesting we saw a lot of that resistance in the government in baghdad there was also an energy dimension. the high oil prices than being
the only holders of spare capacity. they didn't have any rivals in that department. they were talking about pumping 12 million barrels per day. from that i learned you really need to look at events of the foreign-policy lens and an understanding of energy markets and technology. at that point there was no energy windfall. what do you mean by the windfall ? i mean apparently not a lot of people like that name. the whole idea is that it's a bit of an unexpected gain or
boon for the night since. and it begins from the premise that over the last ten years we have moved from a world that was informed by the fear of energy scarcity to a reality of energy abundance. the windfall element is that it is somewhat of a surprise and it's a huge strategic boon on the challenge that i talk about in the book is understanding how this has reshaped global affairs and as a perkins you say it is a personal antidote to the notion of systemic -- systemic decline. the linkage between energy and
foreign policy. but there's still a lot of misunderstanding as to what the benefits are. people are expecting energy independence and liberation from middle eastern politics in my book tries to argue that there are benefits they are just more subtle and they require a better understanding of energy markets. and here i would say the in a note to american decline is the benefited station of how the bill has been a source of power for the united states. is very infrequent. ten years later there is more of a debate in these countries. particularly in china. i don't know if they think america is great. but they certainly say there is a? a lot of reasons for this but one of them is this energy boom. it has underscored the power
of american innovation. you had traveled to an awful lot of countries and a lot of people around the world are you implying that people within the united states have less of a recognition of the significance of this as you call it. let's take the part about how americans understand or perceive this. i do think that americans are now aware of the fact were becoming aware of the fact that energy is now an asset for the united states rather than a vulnerability. there are many of us who had worked in government and we can get used to working under the assumption that the energy physician was just one of those enduring vulnerabilities. and that could change pretty dramatically in the last year. there is a misunderstanding of what the strategic benefits are. i think people understand a little bit more about this can be good for jobs in the economy and i have knowledge
that in the book but i also really tried to underscore how this has changed the global strategic environments in a way that is good for the united states. after he less -- left the fed. the most positive thing to happen since the financial collapse is that there are millions of jobs that flow from this. there had been millions of jobs. they had ebbed and flowed in number based on the price. when the price went down that some of them that were booming contracted a bit. but overall the benefits to the economy were even greater then the supplemental that was passed one of the prominent
democratic candidates in 2016 not that the one who got that nomination wanted to stop all backing which would stop that. this windfall continues. did you think in the book about whether there would be an effort to bring it to a halt. in fact like many books and i know you are sympathetic to this. it went through many generations. and most of it focused on how we should find the price collapse. at one point i was writing it with more in mind that the challenge to sustaining this it was was in the political realm. and there could be a political push that would lead to a
severe restriction and my argument was trying to make people think about the cost benefit analysis in a way that incorporated strategic gains as well as economic ones. it would be a very significant reversal of fortunes if we were to be in fracking. but that's not to say there is not a rollover regulation. there are legitimate concerns. one of the things i was struck with in your discussion which is maybe a little counterintuitive you advocated more state regulations that actually is more for the federal and state. you might explain. if i can't be wonky with the scout who this god who can be wonky with. i think again one of the big questions as not should there
be fracking or no fracking what is the right level of regulation. there will continue to be a debate about it. but the one debate is who are the right regulators. there are certain issues that make more sense to regulate a federal level there are other issues that make more sense. as long as there is capacity to do that. because a lot of the effects were not looking at this. we are looking at a lot of potential arrest can we turn of the broader politics.
>> they are teetering on collapse. in all of the contracts of russia. it's not affecting the price. in the context of writing this book. before the price collapse and it was actually an acquaintance of mine he was leaving the energy business. they have become divorced from energy markets. you have the most volatile politics. the price is not really affected by it. there was a sense that these two things had to be coupled. the issue right now is that they have a lot more access supply. doesn't mean that they won't still be a big issue and then it couldn't affect the price.
if we look at libya and venezuela together. these are two uncertain moments that could well end up in a significant restriction of global supply -- supply. i don't expect that you would write on geopolitics and i certainly wanted to. how has this windfall in your view and you spent a lot of time in the region changed the u.s. relations and interest with the mideast. there is a desire on the part of many americans ellie i'm sure included many of us that had worked there. we would like to have more distance from the problems of the middle east and the sense that if were not importing a lot of oil. that would give us an opportunity to disengage here get going back to my first answer if we look at that
world not only wearing a foreign policy lens. it's much harder to make that argument we are not energy independent. and we probably won't be in most scenarios. all of these countries. if something happens in the middle east that of course will affect americans because the price we pay at the pump is determined internationally. i don't think it means nothing changes in the relationship. i think this is a crowd that can really understand this. if you are preparing a president or senior official to go into a meeting with his or her counterpart there is only a certain number of things you can talk about. it's more like two or three. will was always up there high on the list. now it doesn't does it need to
be high on the list. there is room and scope to talk about other things. it's not dramatic but it's not insignificant. how do you find some of the key decision makers how decision-makers how do they see this windfall and does that change the view of the u.s. and our commitment to the region. in of course in many parts of the world but certainly in the middle east perception is reality. there has been a sense of america up until very recently with the visit to saudi arabia that america has been disengaging from that part of the world and many senior people in the regent would say region would say in this must be because you don't need our oil anymore. i would say it does seem more disengaging and i think that is immaterial. there is the perception that
we are less interested in the region even a real cold analysis of the facts we still have a lot of intertwined interests. those relationships and it's informing the way they look at that involvement in the middle east. and it makes them a little nervous that we will be less invested in this part of the world they are becoming more dependent upon. what you say to the decision-makers that express these concerns to you. actually we still have a lot of energy interests in common but we also have a whole raft of non- energy interests. we will be interested in the middle east middle east for a long time to come.
they could actually make the middle east more important for the source of oil and i think people find it quite interesting. this is the value the foreign policy and energy markets together. i think the assumption is if they could play out. i see others here that could talk to us about the different projections about how energy markets could look in the future. they were in a world most people would say that to be bad for the middle east. it could be bad in some ways. a lot of higher cost producers outside of the golf could no longer decide to produce. it's not commercial for them to produce. more of the oil that is
consuming would actually come from the middle east. you could find us in a situation they have more influence than they do right now on global politics. in your view with the sanctions on iran that got them to the table the nuclear deal. i think this is the really interesting story here and i do think the situation in the united states and increase it really creates an environment for the sanctions it's not a coincidence that most of the time the sanctions are put in place in a low-price environment where people feel like the oil comes off-line. it's no big deal.
but the sanctions in the obama administration was able to get support for a high price environment and they do that by going around the world and talking about various government officials and they were able to make the case. they have said they will step in if the iranian oil comes off the market. and looks at the american energy sector. several years at the time that they were promoting the sanctions america has produced another million barrels of oil per day adding to the global market. and so that really i think he's some of the fears that would normally be in place when you're trying to talk about taking significant quantity off the market. at a time when the markets seem to be there. the global economic recovery was very fragile. as you talk to tom donelan when he was talking about sanctions a lot of economic
counterparts keep in mind we have a fragile economic situation. you mentioned the sanctions and oil-producing countries. most recently the newest the sink think and are in russia. how do you evaluate the sanctions on it was controversy. in some ways the balance shifted rather than the executive. they were a big departure for most sanctions. and they took the prerogative away from the executive branch for lifting and the sanctions and then gave it back to congress. in this i think has undermined and they took the authority
almost all pieces of sanctions and legislations. in fact ten years ago there was movements in congress to pass legislation to make it mandatory to include this waiver. even with the secretary of state why had that way. i'm good at waving the sanctions because they're not in the national security interest. and it has been very widely defined. when he was saying this was can upset relationships with the europeans president bush used waivers. this has been a very broad authority. the piece of legislation basically says before a waiver could be used the congress has the right to act on it. on whether or not the sanction can be lifted. my problem with this is one of a generic problem with sanctions. we think about sanctions as
trying to maximize the economic impact that has on a country but there is also another use for sanctions enough to try to create an environment in which a negotiation can happen. and in that environment you want the negotiator whoever the person's is in charge of that relationship to have the ability to say if you do ask i can do y for you. and this has been effective in other circumstances. it was important in the iran a deal going back in time and in the normalization of the relationship between the u.s. and vietnam. this piece of legislation takes it away it means that it will be harder to actually engage in russia at any point in the future for something like that you could say the sanctions certainly worked on iran are they working on russia.
i think it depends on what it means by working. has it changed the russian behavior i don't see evidence of that. in that regard i would say they haven't have the desire of fact. but if you say the objective is punitive in some way there has been some punitive effect of the sanctions and i think it's not just now although there has been an effect on the ability of companies to get financing and that kind of thing but also an effect on russian energy production in the future. a lot of the sanctions have to do with technologies that russia needs to develop a lot of its unconventional energy which isn't part of their supply now let me be part of their supply in the future. you use the term windfall. other people not so far from here have a different way of describing the change in the u.s. energy.
what is your reaction to the concept of energy dominance. you never mention anyone in particular. it's just a general reference. i think energy dominance is the administration. and in some ways i think the trump administration as trumpet administration as i mentioned is right to acknowledge that this is an asset to is to think about energy as a strategic tool but i think that there are some problems with the way that this concept has been developed. i don't like the sound of it because it sounds aggressive unlike a zero sum game. my real issues are kind of twofold the first is quite simple. the focus has been largely on fossil fuels and increasing production of that. in my mind that is appropriate under the right conditions but in today's world. there is no denying that the
superiority or the palace whatever you want to use as the terminology needs to include other forms of energy as well. we are seeing that china has been talking about putting a date certain by which it will stop selling cards that use petroleum. i think they also realize that strategic benefit i think we risk losing that. however i would say my real could critique is we can't focus and this is a theme in the book just on production if we are looking at trying to find a way to create a policy or strategy that maximizes this moment for the united states it requires doing other things as well not just looking at production but looking at our non- energy
foreign policy and thinking about how that affects energy. our position on trade looking at the policy towards mexico. it also requires taking advantage of the strategic environment and the non- energy world. it has opened a pot possibilities. how is this changed the u.s. china relationship. and then we want to talk about with the discussions with my argument is i'm aware that china and the u.s. can have a difficult relationship for the seeable future. i know this is the case. as i think policymakers and
concerned citizens and everyone else. they should be looking at places that had, cause. in the hopes that those will build relationships. and that they can possibly affect the rest of the relationship. there are many ways in this new energy environment that i think creates those opening. i would say one one i think this energy the energy environment opens a space for tenant to be more comfortable in the current international order. i can talk about why that's the case. is china going to remake of the order or cannot live within it. i think it affects the calculations i think that they were content -- they work on
issues with china. it simply that this was an area where we have common interest and we actually had credibility because of the shift of admissions made possible by the natural gas boom to really get in there and negotiate with tight --dash mike china that is a soft power thing. i'm back to the middle east. i think there is an opportunity for the u.s. and china to work more closely on that. these are areas that are outside of asia how concerned are you about that. and how does it fit in. obviously our relationship with mexico has many facets energy is an important one. it's often overlooked help integrated we are with mexico. i don't know how many
americans know that mexico is a longest -- largest importer. and that's likely to grow very significantly over the coming years if mexico continues its energy reform. because the reforms are tied to their prospects for economic growth which the mexicans have up until this point decided that we have our own natural gas but we can also input natural gas from across the border. let's build pipelines. that may be decided that it actually completes that. here there are huge elements that could be lost with that. if you are working for international energy company.
you want piece of american equipment. thirty-six hours to get it from anywhere in america. it might be longer if you are in argentina. that kind of seamless interaction is really beneficial to american companies to natural gas and oil production. in all these things could be lost if we have down a more confrontational road. is there an energy politics dimension to the complex of issues in north korea. it is interesting in this real difficult situation we find ourselves in that the options are attractive.
they are understandable. and it's on a diplomatic answer to this crisis. i'm skeptical but given on the the unattractiveness of the military option or the risk of a deterrence option. if the want to go for. there are a lot of parallels that the people are using same we could employ an iran strategy and north korea .. ..
mandate to negotiate. there is no such mechanism in north korea. we are talking about influencing one individual and secondly there is a lot of interesting work being done, the north koreans could substitute their oil with coal to liquid technology. this is expensive and would create problems. >> do they have that capability? >> they have some of that capability and they have enough call that they could do that especially now that they are called experts. they could easily do it. i don't know if they could easily do it. it would be expensive. there is an energy dimension but energy is not the answer here. >> let's open up to discussion, there are two mikes in the
room, maybe 3. your name, affiliation and a question, not a speech. go for it. you got to stand up. does the microphone come to them or do they go to the microphone? >> mark finley with ap. look forward to reading it all. my question, it seems to me a lot of what drove this american windfall doesn't have as much to do with energy as it does the above ground factors, the way of life whether the financial market, the business system, bankruptcy laws and do you see evidence around the world that countries are looking through the lens of the energy revolution, can we reform political economic social system and or do you see evidence they are saying this
is a lever for strategic advantage, for the broader concepts. and the window into those broader questions. >> it is a great question and i agree with the premise the what happened in the us is not just about geology. a lot about the institutional environment, financial markets, window to small companies, these things were critical than the energy outcome here. five years ago there were a lot of countries that were very optimistic about their ability to replicate this and very few have. only a couple other countries are producing commercial quantities and are still very small quantities. it has been very hard for them
to reproduce this. the geopolitical bit is what you get at. how much has the us government thought this might be something we might be able to use as an entry.point into conversations around the world. i talk about this, our state department in earlier days really did try to respond to other countries that were interested. tell us how you wrote your laws, tell us what institutional factors made a difference. these programs limped a lot not because there wasn't a demand for them but there wasn't a lot of funding and my understanding was with the obama administration there was disagreement about the development of fossil fuels overseas while there are environmental concerns at home. they did not reach their full potential. >> secretary did -- >> she did and it could have been more than it was and the potential is still there.
going back to the idea of soft, this is a way not only for america to help other countries develop their own resources but gives us a seat at the table to talk about issues that are hard to talk about. hard to talk about transparency, rule of law, anticorruption and not sound like you are lecturing but if you are doing it in the context of helping a country understand here are the variables required to be successful you can have a qualitatively different conversation. i will end on this. it seems the budget cuts to the state department would further degrade that capability rather than augmenting it. >> you very much, for this terrific talk. could you unfold a little bit the issue of china? i believe their goal is 2040,
when they want to phase out production of combustion engines. what does that mean? >> as assistant minister who said it, there are other forces, we disagree with you totally. >> could you unpack and then unfold? >> okay. i told dan jump in at any moment. i think dan's point is right. it is still in where china will end up on this but it is interesting this debate, calling an end to petroleum in the context of an and france, saying 20/40 is the date we are no longer going to sell these cars so you have written and france already making that a policy initiative.
and china which obviously matters a lot more to the global energy markets and the automobile markets debating this. the significance, there are a couple. one is what is driving is this? in france and britain a lot of environmental concerns driving this, in china that is partially the case but it is also a recognition of china, there can be strategic advantage in being a leader on the technology and about what those signals of britain, france and china given this is a finite gravy train. that does change the conversation. a couple people, always interested when i go to saudi
arabia what questions to ask so 2014, what is the breakeven price for shale? everyone was focused on that. when i was last there not quite a year ago, all the questions were about electric vehicles, the nature of the conversation changed, we don't know when that moment is going to come there's an expectation it will come and that change and mindset will affect decisionmaking and behaviors as well. >> anyone in this audience with a volvo? >> there is a volvo decision. >> it is a chinese car owned chinese company. the point is it is not just about leader in technology but leader in the global automobile market, perhaps electric cars leapfrog over the well-established and more advanced competitors. >> by 2019, no more --
>> could be an electric car or hybrid. a friend of mine went to see the new volvo and you get 14 miles on one charge. lady in the back, two ladies. >> stacy worden, center for financial markets. on the road to national prosperity and economic growth i would say strewn with dead bodies of oil producing countries and nations throughout history, from dutch disease, corruption to oil price volatility on banking sectors. i was wondering if you have a feel on the geopolitical subpoena. the council on foreign relations has written a view on commodity exporter as a result of shale and other things. do you have a way of thinking that? listen for the us and other
companies? >> where exporting both. >> net net on that. >> two quick reactions. on the us, sometimes i get questions from my students is the us going to be subject to dutch disease, that is a new worry, will the resupply? an important industry that the american economy is so complex and so many other sectors to it, not so much concerned we are going to bear the same effects you referenced in other parts of the world, this is very much playing out in other parts of the world. one of the most interesting things to watch, the effect that it has on golf countries
in saudi arabia in particular. the reform efforts we have seen conceptualized as we can to be implemented though there has been some stalling but it never happened without the shift in energy. not that there is more energy on the market as i describe in detail in the book, shale, oil retired oil introduce new business model which has made it very hard for oil markets to work the same way they did before. they are coming to terms with the fact they don't just have to survive the load in anticipation of the highs but there's a new oil market world. the need for reforms, don't have these bodies along the side of the road you describe is very very real and anyone who travels to the kingdom has the opportunity to meet with other people and get the sense
they understand reform is imperative if you are going to survive which doesn't mean it is inevitable or successful but there is a seriousness that hasn't been there before. >> nice to see you. to what extent did the shale oil revolution detract from our ability to develop renewables, with a diversion that an environmental stir terms is expensive? >> i would say it is an object of debate. there is the very obvious point but not so much oil but natural gas is an easy substitute for renewable as well as call when
we do the net net on the environmental side we need to take the whole substitution effect into account so unquestionably in some cases renewables might have been seen as more attractive. very low natural gas for the foreseeable future makes it less so. if you look at the statistics of renewable energy investment in the last few years even in the context of low natural gas prices those numbers are quite high. there are subsidies and government policy we have to take into account but we can't point to a precipitous drop in renewable energy and attribute that to low-price natural gas so far and away natural gas for now is a complement to a lot of renewables because they are intermittent energy sources. >> that is important because of the intermittency but to make sure there has been no
precipitous decline in renewable investments. the subsidies and incentives that went in are very powerful and continue to provide great incentives and mandatory requirements for renewables. >> i wanted to go back to energy dominance a little bit. and dutch disease as well. i 100% agree the revolution has changed the us economy. huge benefit to the us economy and that huge liability with massive energy importer has been neutralized. the thing i am struggling with gone the other way and it is a huge asset. the us is a net importer of energy. still one of the largest importers of oil in the world.
it will carry on and are most scenarios is an importer of oil to the 2030s or so. i understand why that liability has been neutralized but not sure how this became a big asset and one can get to the world of energy dominance. >> asset in financial terms? >> in the way i use it. >> in a foreign policy context. it is an asset. i understand liability being neutralized but remember, the us is a net importer of energy and will carry on importing oil for many years to come. >> it is true that our imports have gone 60% to 21%. half of those come from other countries. >> that is great.
thanks for getting those statistics out there. this gives me an opportunity to elaborate on a point i made quickly before. it is probably fair to say many in the foreign policy committee look at this like do we have a foreign policy cudgel? can we use energy exports to force increase to punish our adversaries or aid our allies? we saw that when donald trump went to poland and talked about natural gas being able to displace russian exports to europe. people are looking for something very tangible. my argument is the asset component of this is more in the realm of changing the strategic environment and augmenting hard and soft power. that is the asset. it is less of a sense that we could use exports to make up his do things we want to do.
there are more subtleties to be argued but my argument in fact is that augments sources of hard and soft power and changing the environment in a variety of ways through markets, has an appreciable benefit and puts america in a better position on the whole. there are liabilities that come with it but in a better position to advance its interests. >> we will pivot to the side and that side. and one. >> i was curious. i was curious, the impact of innovation in the oil and gas industry has been faster than many of us expected and the impact on solar innovation has
been slower than we expected. solar has declined faster in price than oil and gas. what do you think would happen over the next decade? >> this is the question i will demand. it is interesting, so many in this room the read the national intelligence council comes out with global trends every four or so years. if you read the tooth they report it talks about the coming energy transition but it is all about renewable space and not about the oil and gas space where things are always happening. it is right to put a big question mark around this. my sense is there will be
technological aspects to affect the oil and gas revolution. i wouldn't say we are at the end of that at all. there is still more than one way to be covered and we can still expect technology to have some impact on our ability and the ability of others to produce more, maybe for lower prices. that will eventually come to a house. on the other side i don't know who to attribute this, technology moves much more slowly but when it arrives it happens more quickly than you would expect. that is what we are waiting for on the battery side. when is that moment going to come? if you told me in the next we 10 years the speed of these relative second and the rate of technology and transforming them would switch, i would be
believe that. i could imagine the next we 10 years we were sitting here or if we are sitting here in ten years we might be talking a lot about the geopolitics of renewable energy and started to look into that already because it is an interesting space. if you agree with the premise that the energy mix affect global politics, we are moving to a different kind of energy future as we inevitably are, we should expect to >> in global politics that would go with that and that is an area ripe for investigation. >> whatever happens to federal spending in this area there is a lot of momentum on alternative technologies. we are doing a big study to understand the technology innovation is in the united
states for technology. there could be momentum. as to which goes faster i don't know. obviously renewable solar has benefited greatly from capacity in chinese manufacturing. there is no reason to think that won't stop. the advisory board at mit energy initiative, i once asked what i people working on more than anything else? solar. there are enormous innovative efforts that will continue and whether the funding comes from government or not we will be there for that. it is -- that's right. there are a lot of incentives. an electric car, electric is virtually free if you can get
one. >> tesla no less. >> there is a reason for that. there are questions on this side now. maybe not. the lady there had her hand up. >> sherry goodman of the international center. thank you, the book is terrific and thank you for your research. continuing from the question for both of you unpacking a little more the opportunities, the advanced energy economy as we move toward electrification of vehicle fleets and regions of the world in africa and india emerging through different mechanisms than we have seen historically in leapfrog into certain renewable set think clear, preventable revival of nuclear. what do you see about the advanced energy market? give us your vision. >> what do you mean?
>> the nuclear geopolitics of nuclear and the renewable energy market you will see as you talk about we unexpectedly find ourselves in fossil energy dominance now but should we also be seeking a quest for energy dominance in other sectors? >> you adopted energy dominance? okay. >> trying to get people to talk windfall. >> a strategic boom. >> on the renewable side going back to what i started to talk about i think there will be geopolitical implications of title a small workshop on this in berlin, mostly european. i felt here in a room, there's
lots of resistance to what you are saying. i tried to figure out what is the resistance? people said why are you saying these bad things about renewables? i'm not. i'm also renewables but we have to assume a change in energy mix bring the change in politics and some of it will be good and some of it will be bad. on the good side, there is huge potential to alleviate energy poverty in parts of the world that haven't invested in infrastructure already and will never do so because potential to leapfrog over that. that is a net geopolitical benefit. we also need to think about, in a world in which we are relying more on renewable energy, the end renewable energy agency, global institution, they have done a scenario where 70% of the world could be run on
renewable energy. 70% of the world. let's take that scenario, what do global politics look like? we have to think about what are the vulnerabilities of a global economy that is so electrified? there will be vulnerabilities. about cyber a lot of these things will be more important than they are today. it bears keeping in mind because something is electrified doesn't necessarily mean it is there for the environment depending on your source of electricity. if it is call it is worse for the environment. it is gas renewables on nuclear this could be beneficial for the environment. >> interesting to take that talk about 70%, 82% of the global economy now as hydrocarbons. where that to happen it would
be a shift. >> a dramatic shift. >> question here? >> carolyn campbell. i am a large investor in emerging markets. my question relates to the united states and i have a question on windfall. does the windfall you are discussing extends to the united states rust belt? in other areas you have a natural gas boom with related industries, heat exchange producers, potential former industrial centers on the basis of cheap energy, do you think the windfall could have been the former rust belt? >> talking about windfall -- we looked at that carefully and even in new york state which band fracking, to the rust belt manufacturing, came from a long
supply chain of shale. a lot of jobs in the midwest. we basically had a dozen capital investments in the united states for the supply chain which is why you got a couple million jobs and that is not well-received, not just jobs, but jobs in ohio. >> completely consistent with that is not just jobs for production but lower natural gas price is a competitive edge in manufacturing. you have seen some companies bring investments back home. we have seen some of that, german companies invest in the united states. >> $125 billion investment in manufacturing in the us as a
result of competitive energy prices and many european companies, even chinese companies manufacturing in the united states. is there a lapsed question? >> you haven't touched on call yet. i wonder if you could give us a few words on that >> it would be great but i have not seen much evidence of it. there's a lot of talk in china about clean coal but not a lot of evidence. in terms of future of call it
depends on what you are asking the question of. from china and india those are the places to see if coal is going to maintain its market share. we have already seen percentage of energy needs in china, a large economy, 64% of energy needs met by call, that is started to come down and there are huge incentive to bring that down. how large the number is suggests it is not being phased out around the world. there are still places, india being one of them where they are breaking up, they have such enormous energy gaps. so call in the united states, despite efforts of the current administration, i wouldn't say
there's a big future because i think natural gas, we are looking at a long future of low prices for natural gas and a variety of other factors which will make it a preferred fuel but another part of the world is another question. >> we have covered a vast part of the world, a whole host of issues in which energy and geopolitics interact. the only one we left out is the question of us lng versus russian gas and we will have to leave that for next time. thank you for writing this terrific book and thank you on behalf of everybody today for this discussion. >> thank you for hosting us. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on