Energy Compass, an industry news source, published a wide-ranging interview today with Carlos Pascual, the State Department’s Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, that’s worth a read. Pascual shares his thoughts of the state of the oil market as well as his work as head of the department’s new Bureau of Energy Resources. Read more »

I’m off on vacation for a couple weeks. In the meantime, here are a few books I’ve read over the past year that I’d recommend:

1. The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. Dan Yergin’s new history and prognosis for energy is not without its flaws, but on the whole, it’s a great overview of where we’ve been and where we might be going. Besides, it’s a great read, which is something one can’t often say about an energy book.
2. Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. Robert Kaplan’s book, published late last year, is a fascinating cross between travelogue and analysis of international politics. It’s also not entirely unrelated to where I’ll be over the next couple weeks.
3. The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century’s On-line Pioneers. In a year where social media became a major topic of discussion among people who care about international relations, it’s worth going back to this neat book to understand that we’ve been through something like this before. Like the first two books, this one’s not just good analysis – it’s a great story.
4. Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. Dan Deudney’s 2006 book isn’t nearly as easy reading as the others I’ve listed here – there’s a lot of jargon and dense political theory. It’s worth the effort, though, to work through this reinterpretation of two thousand years of international relations history and theory that tries to explain the every-expanding scope of international cooperation. I don’t quite buy his predictions for the future, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is probably the most interesting book I read this year.

Brad DeLong had an inspired post last week in which he took a look back to see where his prior beliefs had been undermined by reality. I like the idea. Here, then, are a few of my posts from the past year that have fared poorly over time: Read more »

Steve Mufson had a piece in the Washington Post Outlook section this past weekend suggesting that the $172 billion that the U.S. government has spent on early stage energy research since 1961 has largely been a waste. (I say “suggesting” rather than “arguing” because Steve doesn’t quite make the point explicitly; that said, it’s hard to read his essay without being nudged toward that conclusion.) There’s a lot of smart stuff in the piece, but in the end, it’s unconvincing. Read more »

Business Insider published an interview today with Tesla founder Elon Musk in which Musk makes a striking claim: “You have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline,” he asserts. “You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine [one gallon of] gasoline, something like the [Tesla] Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours.” Read more »

A new Council on Foreign Relations task force report always gets my attention. Task forces are painstaking efforts (trust me, I’ve directed one) spanning about a year each that bring together a couple dozen diverse figures to form consensus on a particular area of critical policy importance. The latest installment, released yesterday, is entitled Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations. It’s interesting in its own right, but it’s particularly relevant to those who focus on energy and environment. Read more »

CFR is looking to hire a new fellow who will focus on the intersection of energy and national security. This is a great opportunity for someone who is interested both in doing serious policy scholarship and in helping build a broad effort to improve the state of knowledge in this increasingly important area. The fellow will be expected to have a PhD in a related field; he or she will also ideally have some postdoctoral experience. Read more »

I wrote a few weeks back about the ill-advised cuts to the EIA budget that were part of the budget deal. Yesterday, I joined thirty policy analysts and former policymakers from across the political spectrum in a letter to members of Congress, explaining how important EIA products are to analysts and policymakers, and urging them to reconsider the cuts. Read more »

I’m just back from a trip to Europe where, among other things, I talked to people about international climate policy. At one point, I was asked about differences between the United States and Europe in the realm of climate diplomacy. I observed that the biggest difference was that most Europeans remain focused on concluding a legally binding climate treaty, while most Americans advocates of serious action on climate change are far less attached to that particular outcome. I noted that one can have strong action without a treaty, and weak action with one, and then offered three hypotheses for why many in Europe remains so treaty-focused: Read more »

The EIA got slammed by the budget deal, which cut its FY11 funding by $15.2 million from its FY10 level of $110.6 million. It’s just announced the efforts that it will have to terminate as a result (hat tip: the indispensable RFF Library Blog). The result is pretty ugly. What are we missing out on in order to save a whopping $15.2 milion, or roughly a nickel for every American ? Here are a few highlights: Read more »