| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the impact of imprecise terminology on the energy policymaking process in US, focusing on the manipulation of discourse by different political-economic interests seeking to sway popular opinion. Using the 2012 US Presidential Elections as a backdrop, the analysis highlights the cooption of the concepts "security," "independence," and "sustainability" in energy debates by different and often opposing interest groups. The article's first section traces the malleability of energy terminology to the vagueness of the term "energy" itself and notes how qualifying words like security, independence, and sustainability have been selectively exploited to introduce further ambiguity to an already fungible concept. The second section notes that while energy is a critical and complex factor of macroeconomic production, its main public visibility comes via a few partially representative numbers, like gasoline prices. This mismatch of broad social importance and piecemeal public understanding enables organized interests to leverage vague terminology in support of particular policy ideas. The third section examines three policymaking tools (1) taxation, (2) regulation, and (3) technology promotion and compares these administrative instruments. Ultimately, the article concludes that loosely defined terminology inhibits energy policy discussion and stifles meaningful public debate over and action on energy issues.
|