Energy transformation and security—We are not just a nation, but a world that is starved for energy, and there is no going back. Whether we have reached peak oil may be debatable, but what is not debatable is that we need and consume vast quantities of energy, and that energy is the glue that binds us economically, militarily, and socially—it is the material lynchpin of global interdependence. As such, failing to have a comprehensive plan has ramifications that threaten all facets of civil society in a manner never seen before. In order to have energy security, we will have to transform the way we procure, produce, use and regulate a variety of energy resources. Unfortunately, like most national issues, energy security is being held hostage by rigid political ideology and partisanship rather than practicality and science.
Those on the left side of the political spectrum bemoan our “dependence” on fossil fuels, but refuse to see that this technology, with all it’s detractions, is the best system we have, and that renewable sources, while promising and deserving of investment, are neither reliable or well-developed at present to offset a sudden disuse of carbon-based fuels. Moreover, certain alternative fuels, such as ethanol, are not only poor substitutes, but wreak economic havoc on developing nations by raising the price of crops, with the consequences falling disproportionately on the world’s poor. As economists C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, point out:"Resorting to [corn based] biofuels is likely to exacerbate world hunger. “ 1
The bottom line is that we are just not in a place yet in which alternative fuels can meaningfully and realistically substitute for petro fuels en masse. As Robert Bryce, energy journalist and Author of Gusher Of Lies states: “Energy independence is hogwash. From any standpoint, economic, political, military, or environmental—energy independence makes no sense. Worse yet, the inane obsession with the idea of energy independence is preventing the U.S. from having and honest and effective discussion about the energy challenges it now faces.”2 This is because we live in a global system undergirded by international interdependence.
It is often pointed out, and rightly so, that petrodollars fill the vaults of foreign despots, including organizations that fund terrorism. This is unfortunate and undesirable, but also, to a degree, unavoidable, because oil is a fungible commodity. This means that emerging superpowers, such as India and China, will pick up the slack even if we lessen our demand. Of course it could be argued we would be at least taking the moral high ground by not purchasing oil from such sources; but in the end analysis, it would be a zero sum gain, because money would continue to flow to these organizations regardless of its source. As Mother Jones puts it: “Despite its immense appeal, energy independence is a nonstarter—a populist charade masquerading as energy strategy that's no more likely to succeed (and could be even more damaging) than it was when Nixon declared war on foreign oil in the 1970s.” 3
From this perspective, it is somehow mystifying that liberals at once champion our common humanity with catch phrases like “global village” and “a world without borders,” yet are completely myopic to the material aspect that binds us. The blood that courses through the venous collective is oil. There is no getting round this,f or at least for the near future.
But the blame does not fall entirely on progressives. Chants of “drill, baby drill” are appealing, and even commonsensical to a point, but they are short-sighted, and are not beyond rational criticism. The Green movement, despite its political and emotional excesses, makes fundamental points about carbon fuels that simply cannot be ignored. Oil may or may not be at its peak availability, but it will one day run out. Furthermore, fossil fuels as a whole are undeniably toxic to the environment, pose a variety of serious health threats, degrade and destroy natural habitats when extracted, and imperil the safety of those who are involved in the both the extraction and production of this energy source. The Exxon Valdez and the BP oil tragedies remind of these consequences. Further more, the potential for further, unexpected problems, despite technological innovation, is both real and significant. To ignore these realities crosses the line from benign neglect into ethical negligence.
Though we must rise to this mega-challenge, there is no simple answer. Rather, we must use our present system of energy production as a transition to a mixed-energy source economy. Obama and his administration interpret this in a skewed manner, looking to penalize oil companies by imposing penalties and restrictions via a cap-and trade scheme. According to economist David Kreutzer of the Heritage foundation, such an approach would not only fail to reduce carbon emissions, (as happened in Europe under the Kyoto protocol), but raise energy prices to such a level many businesses would fold, leading to a loss of over 300,000 manufacturing jobs.4 As Bjorn Lomberg, a social scientist and objective assessor of global warming states: “Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that we have to solve it, if the cure is going to be more expensive than the original ailment.” 5
Beyond the obvious grief suffered by those left unemployed I such a scenario, this dynamic would also significantly shrink our tax base, leading to less money that could be directed toward research and development. So any “investment” the government wants to make has to take into account the fragility of the present manufacturing base. Instead of hustling up tax payer dollars to be dolled out to cronies of politicians, a more measured and reasonable approach would be to free up regulations and corporate taxation in return for plowing this money into finding ways to efficiently and safely procure fossil fuels while simultaneously investing in alternative sources.
The key point is to use the expertise at our disposal in the existing energy companies to continue to find and develop a variety fuels for hungry consumers. Case in point would be the collaboration between ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics, Inc. to produce synthetic algae, a potential boon to alternative energy. Yet, as promising as this source is for the future of energy, it is not without complications. Beyond the costs to create and maintain a steady supply, synthetic algae requires a constant supply of carbon dioxide, beyond the elevated levels we have now. 6Yes, there is grand irony here. In fact, it begs the question of whether it is government meddling that is causing problems to begin with.
If we really want a mixed-energy future, the best bet is to free up the innovators and entrepreneurs in the free market and provide a simplified regulatory structure to provide them with the capital and freedom needed for R and D. Until then, be thankful we have been blessed, at least temporarily, with oil, regardless of where it comes from.
Those who would like a more detailed and extensive analysis regarding energy productivity are encouraged to see the report “Facing the Hard Truths About Energy,” by the National Petroleum, found at http://www.npchardtruthsreport.org/download.php.
1. http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/04/corn-ethanol-could-hurt-poors-food.html
2. http://www.amazon.com/Gusher-Lies-Dangerous-Delusions-Independence/dp/1586483218
3. http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/seven-myths-energy-independence
4. http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-economic-impact-of-cap-and-trade
5. http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001dec01_lomborg.html
6. http://greeneconomypost.com/algal-biodiesel-pros-and-cons-9573.htm
