Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

A Response To Michael Levi On Iran And Climate Policy

Posted on  

"A Response To Michael Levi On Iran And Climate Policy"


google plus icon

Iran electionsAt the Council on Foreign Relations, Michael Levi has a thoughtful response to my April 9 post on carbon policy and Iran, “Carbon Cap Would Deny Iran Precious Petrodollars: Over $100 Million A Day.” Levi expressed his concern at the idea that U.S. dependence on imported oil “makes Iran $100 million richer every day.” While recognizing that the methodology used was sound, Levi noted:

The problem is that while the Iranian nuclear problem is unfolding on a relatively short timescale, most of the projected decline in oil revenues comes in the out years. The annual savings, using CAP’s own methodology (which is admirably transparent), reach less than $5 billion annually in 2015, or about $10 million dollars a day. (That roughly doubles by 2020.) That’s about 2-3% of what EIA thinks Iranian oil revenue will be in 2015 (based on the 2009 IEO) – a nontrivial number, but not one that’s of much strategic consequence.

Hopefully it was transparent in my post that this is a long-term strategic shift (after all, there is a pretty chart to that effect), not a short-term crisis response. I will take issue with the idea that a long-term change isn’t “of much strategic consequence.” The generational move to a low-carbon economy will likely determine the arc of history in the coming decades.

It is of course difficult to get into nuance in a single blog post, but it comes in the context of my colleagues’ work — Matt Duss and Max Bergmann have written many thoughtful posts on how the United States and the international community should engage with Iran and the Middle East in the here-and-now.

I would certainly prefer if the Beltway dialogue focused more on nuanced discussions of how, say, an international commitment within the next year or two to a low-carbon economy by 2050 would reshape the geopolitical balance of power, especially vis-a-vis petrostates.

But we literally have our counterparts at the Heritage Foundation arguing that the United States should engage in nuclear-armed “preventative war” with Iran, and that climate scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy to deceive the American public into passing a proto-fascist energy tax.

So there’s a bit of work to be done before serious discourse rules the day.


Michael Levi responds:

I’m quite interested in the broader question of what energy geopolitics would look like in 2030 if we were part way to a circa-2050 low-carbon economy — it’s a tricky question that has received little careful thought. I may do a post outlining some ways to think about that question.

« »

Comments are closed.