Uniting the Americas Through Energy Policy

President Obama's call for an Energy Partnership for the Americas is, on the face of it, an idea with tremendous potential. And although we still know next to nothing about its components, its spirit is already a departure in hemispheric relations.

During her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted in her prepared remarks the "opportunities to enhance cooperation to meet common economic, security and environmental objectives" in the Western Hemisphere, citing specifically the idea for a partnership "built around shared technology and new investments in renewable energy."

At this level of abstraction, the proposal appears to dovetail nicely with at least two of the three objectives of the fifth Summit of the Americas in April: energy security and environmental sustainability. The summit, to be held in Trinidad and Tobago, is expected to bring together all the leaders of the Americas except for Cuba's.

The synergy this partnership promises has been missing in the hemisphere. Under Washington's prodding, previous summit agendas had been dominated by free trade and illegal drugs, issues that over time fomented the North-South division and ideological confrontations. The immediate benefit for all was not necessarily evident.

In contrast, energy promises more common ground and has few ideological hazards. The immediate benefits of improved air and water quality, energy production and supply seem more evident for far more people.

Of course, being against illegal drugs probably once sounded unobjectionable in the abstract. But it was the details and the tools Washington adopted in the anti-drug strategy that made the issue far more contentious.

Similarly, on the surface, an energy partnership may sound innocuous. But it too could be fraught with contentious details. To avoid them, the Obama administration would do well to pick its battles wisely and waste no time on hot-button issues that quickly lead to dead ends.

In the name of energy security and environmental sustainability, Washington could choose to make it incumbent on partners to follow free market rules and favor the private sector. But after the unprecedented government takeovers of recent months, Washington would be hard pressed to oppose the movement to nationalize energy production in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.

Instead, Obama would be far better off stressing common interests with these major fossil fuel suppliers. In particular, technology sharing could be made contingent upon efforts to become more efficient and produce hydrocarbons with a much smaller footprint.

Such an approach would send a message of recognition that fossil fuels remain a reality in the energy mix and a crucial ingredient in the economic development plans for many countries. And the focus on reducing environmental and social impacts should be widely welcomed by, among others, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

But even more hazardous than rubbing Chavez the wrong way would be for the United States to promote cooperation without honestly coming to terms with its protectionism. For some time now, many in Latin America, particularly Brazil, have spoken out against the U.S. tariff on imported ethanol, which protects its more expensive and more inefficiently produced corn-based ethanol.

What's more, the current economic recession has increased concerns for rising protectionism and diminished commitment of resources to green agendas, as cash flow slows and oil prices drop. Put all that together and you have sufficient elements for energy experts to feel skeptical about any talk of international partnership and collaboration.

Once before, during the 1990s, a lack of resources undermined lofty talk about energy integration in the Americas, recalled David Pumphrey, who led international energy cooperation at the Department of Energy until recently and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Back then there was no recession, no clash between Washington and Caracas and no serious doubts about the market economy, so "the promise for integration was stronger" than today, Pumphrey said.

Annette Hester, a Brazilian-born energy expert at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Canada, believes that despite all current impediments there can be progress. Hester is convinced that energy security for the United States will only come through international collaboration particularly within the Americas, so she and other experts throughout the hemisphere are hoping that Obama will take advantage of his first foray into the region to present a more ambitious proposal than what the U.S. has done so far.

The Brazil-U.S. Biofuels Cooperation Agreement launched by the Bush administration and that of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva two years ago, a good start, so far has been mostly assisting four small Latin American countries interested in producing sugarcane ethanol. Without a serious hemispheric commitment to cooperation, the possibility remains that "you end with cooperation between the U.S. and Brazil on production in Saint Kitts," said Hester. "How unambitious is that?"