Talk:Energy policy of the United States
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy policy of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Fossil fuel subsidies / bailout in the United States considered, add?
editFossil fuel subsidies/bailout in the United States:
The White House is considering federal assistance for oil and natural gas producers hit by plummeting oil prices amid the coronavirus outbreak and a price war that broke out between Saudi Arabia and Russia.
A new article/briefing book/post which could help expand this page?
editI'm thinking about a post I came across the other day titled "National Security and Climate Change: Behind the U.S. Pursuit of Military Exemptions to the Kyoto Protocol". Looking at the existing parts of this page, maybe a section could be added about it under the "Energy budget, initiatives and incentives" section? Or maybe something could be added about it under the "Greenhouse gas emissions" section, since that it more closely related to the Kyoto Protocol? I'm not sure exactly where to add even a short section into the article, if at all, so I thought I'd post here and get your thoughts about it before doing anything one way or the other. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The Biden Administration's policies deserve its own article
editJust like Obama and Trump, Biden's policies on energy deserves its own article as it has been very significant during his presidency. Vinnylospo (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Environmental policy of the Joe Biden administration has energy policy as well. Trump's energy policy doesn't have its own article either, it's in the environmental and infrastructure pages. Reywas92Talk 13:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Lede bias - fossil fuels
editThis article -- per the title -- purports to cover the full range of U.S. energy policy. But the lede seems very explicitly biased towards solely addressing (in any detail) fossil fuels, and utterly dismissive of most renewable sources. This is not consistent with the prevailing long-term trend (since 1973, and especially since 1977) in U.S. energy policy.
Renewables, in many states, provide up to a third of electric power -- much of which is increasingly used in automotive applications (with an official federal government policy to shift most vehicles to such power before the mid-century), as well as providing for conventional uses of electricity. Even nuclear energy and traditional hydroelectric power get underwhelming mention here, despite their major roles in U.S. energy consumption. In all, these various non-fossil-fuel sources provided one-third of U.S. electrical energy by 2015, according to the National Academies of Science. In the near-decade since, it's inevitably grown. By 2022, non-fossil-fuel energy sources provided 21.1% (one-fifth) of all U.S. energy in 2022 -- not just for electricity but also for motor vehicle, non-electric heating and industrial applications, and more.
And that's not to mention various energy-conservation policies ranging from federal-building themomemter settings, to mandated automotive fuel mileage improvements, to the Energy Star program, to local, state and national building code changes mandating various improvements in insulation and other energy-conservation measures -- all treated dismissively by the lede, it seems (and by the "Energy efficiency" section, until I added a paragraph listing some government initiatives, just now).
And, of course, the key interconnection of U.S. energy policy with U.S. environmental policy, is underplayed, including the energy issues surrounding climate change, and American government's response to it.
The lede needs to be re-written, IMHO, to substantially, accurately and realistically reflect this much broader diversity in U.S. energy sources, and the fundamental, increasing shift towards alternate energies, as U.S. Energy Policy. This isn't a matter of political correctness, but simple objectivity and full-spectrum coverage, without favor (per WP:NPOV). Fossil fuels may remain the subject of much (perhaps even most) of the lede, and article, but absolutely not to the near-complete dismissal of other energy sources and policy, and the long-term trend towards them.
~ Penlite (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think at (1) yes, I am sorry it’s too much of fossil fuels, and (2) we need a separate article on renewable energy policy. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)