Chapter 6 transitions to the case of the Philippines to provide a comparative analysis of regime complex effectiveness. The chapter begins with a political economy analysis of the domestic actors and interests involved in the energy sector in the Philippines, then delves into the history of geothermal development with an analysis of the impacts of the clean energy regime complex actors on barriers to geothermal development over time. The major findings of this chapter indicate that early domestic political support for geothermal development under the Marcos and Ramos regimes was a response to the exogenous shocks of energy crises. This response to exogenous shocks opened pathways of change that were key in catalyzing geothermal development in the country that later placed the Philippines as the world’s second largest producer for several decades. In the Philippines, an embrace of the energy transition enabled the positive impact of the clean energy regime complex on geothermal development. In Indonesia, domestic political resistance to the energy transition limited regime complex effectiveness.

The economies in the 1970s were characterized by high inflation and low growth. Labor acquired great power that was used to increase wages and to reduce effort and labor efficiency. This was the beginning of a trend toward opening global markets and globalization. There was an assumption that opening of markets would increase global efficiency and standards of living. Enterprises with “global reach” become important. China joined the global economy at this time. There was significant change in favor of market-based policies and against high taxes and public spending, and the role of the market came to be seen more favorably and that of governments less favorably. There was a view that a free market can do almost anything. Pro-market theories become popular. Political elections were affected in several countries. Globalization left some industrial workers without work and without income and conservative governments were reluctant to assist them. In dealing with this problem, domestic markets work less well than expected from theory, while global financial markets grow significantly. There was the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreements and the growing use of flexible exchange rates.

America faces an energy dilemma – continue down the path of oil and gas drilling or diversify to greater shares of renewable energy. The shale boom in the twenty-first century propelled America to become the largest crude oil producer in the world and a net exporter of natural gas. However, the shale bust from 2014 to 2016 prompted renewed debate on America’s pathway. For decades, successive presidents from Nixon to Obama vowed to end America’s addiction to oil. In reality, federal and state governments granted numerous privileges to the oil and gas sector in exchange for securing energy supply, jobs and tax revenue. In 2017, President Trump took office and launched his “America First Energy Plan,” which expanded oil and gas extraction, facilitated the buildout of oil and gas infrastructure, and hacked away at regulations aimed to protect health, the environment and the climate. The Trump administration’s multipronged actions to favor the oil and gas industry, which went far beyond those of previous administrations, went largely unchecked by the 115th Congress that acquiesced and even abetted its actions. Understanding what the administration did and how it was able to undertake such actions is the first step towards resetting America’s energy and environmental paths.