In an era of geopolitical turbulence and technological revolution, the U.S.’s energy and economic security stands at a crossroads. Energy policy has become increasingly politicized with political purity tests shaping job prospects and interviews: if you support fossil fuels, you’re a Republican; if renewables, you’re a Democrat.
During the Iraq War, this was not the case — as evidenced in the adoption of two bipartisan energy laws that focused on reducing our dependence on foreign energy through alternative fuels and breakthrough technologies.
Of course, the innovation that had the greatest impact on reducing import dependency was fracking; today, the United States is an oil and gas powerhouse. But while we may have achieved significant success in this regard, the nation must once again reach consensus on the importance of developing and deploying as much affordable and reliable energy as possible. Today, it is not simply about energy security and avoiding costly Middle East conflicts. It’s about securing our economic sovereignty and winning a civilizational struggle with Communist China.
DAILY ON ENERGY: TRUMP TRIES TO TAME OIL MARKETS ROILED BY IRAN CONFLICT
The U.S. needs every joule of energy it can muster to rebuild strategic supply chains and its defense industrial base. Projections show electricity demands doubling by 2050, driven by data centers, electrification, and reshoring. Cheap energy abundance is the linchpin of competitiveness — think how it has enabled the Rust Belt’s revival. Scarcity, on the other hand, risks undermining domestic investment and capital formation. We must expand all viable sources: drill and refine responsibly, build renewables where the sun shines and the wind blows, revive nuclear, and innovate in other advanced technologies.
Our vast nation, spanning diverse landscapes from sun-drenched deserts to windswept plains and resource-rich heartlands, demands a pragmatic approach to energy. Rather than politicizing energy solutions, we must align our vast geography with sensible resource use, embrace regional variations, let markets drive innovation without favoritism, and prioritize abundance to fuel our competitive edge.
The U.S.’s sheer size — we’re roughly the size of the European continent — and its diverse resources should serve as a natural blueprint. The sun-soaked Southwest is ideal for solar farms as the technology has become increasingly cost-competitive in regions with available land, while the gusty Great Plains scream for wind turbines. Coastal areas could leverage offshore wind or tidal power, and the shale basins of Texas and North Dakota abound in natural gas and oil.
Forcing mismatched technologies ignores this reality. Imagine mandating wind power where the wind doesn’t blow or mandating drilling for oil where there is none. Sensible policy would map energy deployment to topography, climate, and resources, maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste. By doing so, we reduce transmission losses, lower costs, and enhance resilience against disruptions such as storms or cyberattacks.
States and communities should be empowered to tailor energy mixes that work for them. Texas’s deregulated market, for instance, has spurred innovation in renewables, including solar and wind energy, without heavy-handed intervention. Regional grids already demonstrate how localized decision-making can balance supply and demand. A decentralized approach fosters experimentation and adaptability, turning diversity into strength.
We must also eschew mandates and subsidies that tilt the scales toward favored technologies, allowing market economics to dictate infrastructure. Government picking winners — be it through tax credits for politically correct technologies or bans on certain power plants — distorts competition and entrenches inefficiencies.
TRUMP INTERIOR DEPARTMENT MAY EASE UP ON SOLAR INDUSTRY
Yet we cannot ignore how incumbents often lobby for regulations that stifle newcomers. True market fairness means dismantling political monopolies: streamline the permitting of all sources and ensure transparent pricing. States should not be allowed to block energy infrastructure that carries energy to markets — domestic or international. Let entrepreneurs compete on merits. History shows this works: the shale boom, driven by private innovation, not subsidies, transformed America into an energy exporter and lowered emissions. By neutralizing favoritism, we unleash investment in diverse portfolios that enhance our economic and energy security.
In sum, a geography-guided, market-driven, abundance-oriented energy policy isn’t ideological — it’s practical. Energy policy shouldn’t be a political purity test. Policymakers should reject dogma, embrace competition, and prioritize plenty. Only then can the U.S. power its future, rebuild its supply chains, and achieve economic security.
George David Banks is the former chief strategist for Republicans on the House climate committee and special adviser on international energy and environment to President Donald Trump.