Enron Collapse and the proxy implementation of Kyoto by the USA.

Typedef

When the Republican administration in the USA took office the incoming politicians made a revised "Energy policy" that called for renewed and massive investment in Fossil Fuels and Atomic energy as a means of deriving energy. The Republican's promoted 'deregulation' and allowing markets to provide fossil and atomic fuels for the production of energy. However given the collapse of Enron, the biggest financial support of the Bush election campaign in monetary terms is the renewed impetus for fossil fuel investment a lame duck?

text

(enron) Current CEO Ken Lay was also widely rumored to be a possible pick as either Bush's treasury secretary or energy czar, although in retrospect, given the huge profits Enron was raking in during the California energy crisis just as Bush took office, such an appointment might have been politically problematic.

Given all those links, it's fair to think Enron's collapse, at the very least, raises questions about the Bush administration's energy and economic policies, given that much of the administration shares Ken Lay's oft-stated views on promoting deregulation and allowing markets to rage unchecked by any government meddling.

Given that the renewed fossil fuel investment seems to have one of the economic juggernauts and mainstays crippled and bankrupt will the US have to look to renewable forms of energy, solar, hydroelectric and maybe even the rumored hydrogen sources? Clearly if a company as massive as Enron can collapse under a President who withdrew the USA from the Kyoto protocol the confidence the Republican administration has in fossil fuels and market economics providing cheap abundant fossil fuels in untenable. Out of 192 countries the USA was the only country which did not agree to ratify and implement the Kyoto protocol, as according to President Bush, it was not in "America's interests". Now with the collapse of Bush's biggest campaing contributor will the President Bush realise that withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol was unfounded for the afore mentioned reasons? If the market is incapable of sustaining Enron, then it is obviously unable to sustain the whole of America.

Clearly the Bush administration has made some significant moves towards the development of hydrogen-cell powered cars here however the technology does not currently exist and the slashing of government funding for the gasoline-electric powered cars chapioned in part by Former Vice President Al Gore here is only going to aggrivate the American dependace on bloated and inefficent motor veichles at a time when Gasoline companies are going bankrupt.

Sand

Its in the interests of the west to develop alternative energy sources (in fact given the nature of technological advance its inevitable) so as not to be held hostage in the middle east by their economic requirements.

However I think you underestimate the ability of the american economy to recover. Petrol over there is far cheaper than it is here, hence the attractiveness of gas guzzling SUVs. The truth is that alternative energy will not be developed or embraced until it is profitable to do so. This is regardless of Enrons share price (Which it must be remembered is not so much based on the economic fundamentals but rather the markets perception of the fundamentals).