Written by Ryan McGuine //
On December 29, 2024 President Jimmy Carter passed away. Elected as a Washington outsider in the wake of the excesses of the Vietnam War and the Watergate Scandal, President Carter had a transformative impact on America’s energy policy. While some of the measures taken by his administration are controversial, they shaped much of the energy framework that today’s policymakers and industry actors operate within.
President Carter’s overarching approach to energy policy was one of conservation and individual sacrifice for the common good – “things will be expensive, but the sacrifice is worth it.” Along these lines, he famously addressed the nation wearing a cardigan and encouraged Americans to turn down their thermostats to conserve energy in the winter of 1977, setting the tone for a presidency that would emphasize reducing consumption. During his tenure, there would be policies to more strongly enforce the nation’s 55 mile per hour speed limit, public campaigns to not be “fuelish,” and solar panels on the White House.
During the early 20th century, America was one of the world’s largest oil producers – the country famously supplied the oil for the lamps in the Prophet Muhammad’s tomb in Madinah during the 1870s, and was a net exporter as late as 1950. However, domestic production began falling around the 1940s. At the same time, American oil consumption rose strongly as the economy grew and people moved to the suburbs in large numbers, and by 1970 nearly 35% of American oil consumption came from abroad. These dynamics amplified the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, leading to long lines and oil rationing at the pump, and putting energy front of mind for many Americans when President Carter took office.
Then, the tumultuous events of the1979 Iranian Revolution caused Iran’s oil production to collapse, acting as the second major supply shock in five years. The combination of declining domestic production, increasing imports, and price controls drove up prices and again drove shortages. In a famous speech, President Carter called the crisis the “moral equivalent of war,” and outlined a set of policy objectives to reduce imports of foreign energy. These included reducing the annual growth rate in energy consumption below two percent, establishing a strategic petroleum reserve of more than six months’ supply, insulating over 90% of American homes by 1985 and power over two and a half million homes using rooftop solar.
As the connection between energy and national security became clear, President Carter created the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977 by consolidating multiple existing government agencies into one cabinet-level authority. The new department’s primary goals included overseeing the nation’s nuclear energy and weapons, developing alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels, and collecting energy-related data. The DOE also took direction of the Solar Energy Research Institute, which would later become the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
President Carter signed the National Energy Act in 1978 and the Energy Security Act in 1980, which together aimed to overhaul the nation’s energy policy and reduce America’s dependence on imported oil. The former primarily targeted reducing consumption, creating more efficient markets for energy, and diversifying the nation’s energy sources. Meanwhile, the latter focused on promoting alternative fuel sources through investments in energy sources that are rarely discussed today like synthetic fuels (oil from coal, biomass, or tar sands), as well as alternative sources of energy that have become commonplace like wind, solar, and geothermal.
Long before the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement, climate change was significant enough during the 1970s that it could not merely be swept under the rug. However, it was far from a top priority, and President Carter’s legacy on climate change is complicated. On one hand, he made boosting production of low- and zero-carbon energy sources a priority of his administration, providing financial incentives for renewables like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power. He also pushed to increase energy efficiency through standards on vehicle gas mileage and home appliance efficiency. While many of his ambitious targets were missed, his policies helped make renewables today’s cheapest sources of power generation.
On the other hand, national security was a higher priority than climate, and many of President Carter’s actions increased carbon emissions. First, he endorsed legislation to ban construction of new gas-fired power plants, boosting coal generation, because natural gas was scarce and needed for space heating. Second, the DOE under President Carter funded research by George Mitchell into unconventional production, leading to America’s fracking revolution decades later. Third, he made nuclear power more expensive since the environmental movement of the time was strongly opposed to it. Even energy efficiency is dubious, since it sometimes drives up energy consumption beyond the old levels.
Finally, no discussion of President Carter would be complete without mentioning his humanitarian efforts, particularly since development is the second main topic of this blog. Through the Carter Center, he advocated for inclusive institutions like free and fair elections and human rights around the world. The Carter Center has also led fights against neglected diseases with high cost-effectiveness, most notably guinea worm. Whereas many former Presidents use their influence to their own benefit, President Carter’s retirement legacy was marked by a commitment to service and civic-mindedness.
Americans grew to dislike President Carter’s tone of sacrifice and elected Ronald Reagan, who provided an optimistic vision of American exceptionalism and abundance. Many environmental topics can be viewed in a similar light – climate change mitigation versus adaptation, preserving wildlife versus building out electrical transmission, Nationally Determined Contributions versus competing on clean technology innovation. At the end of the day, neither is sufficient on its own, and some amount of both cooperative sacrifices and competitive pressures will be necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change.