How To Achieve Energy Independence: Fareed Zakaria

Newsweek:

Energy independence sounds like such a great idea. If only we could be free ... of what, exactly? The single biggest energy exporter to the U.S. is Canada. And even the petrostates we don't like have to sell us oil at whatever price the market sets. We buy lots from Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. He denounces us, we denounce him, but we happily do business together. After all, what else is he going to do with his oil, drink it?

Read the whole story: Newsweek

Comments

[TJCole]

We can grow Hemp as our Founding Fathers did and mankind has for 10,000 years...!

http://hemp4fuel.com/

Hemp 4 Fuel...

Grow Here, Grow Now..!

[mirage2008]

Amazing Article. Fareed is truly a one of the best and non-partisan thinkers around.

[hark]

How could we ever produce enough energy to supply the rest of the world with our per capita usage? Can't be done. We use 25% of the world's energy supply. Do the math. Three hundred million, out of 6.7 billion. How can we then plan for 9-10 billion without destroying the planet?

Fossil fuels have to go. Imagine using them at five times our present rate. Runaway global warming. And fossil fuel depletion at the same time. We have to plan a future without fossil fuels, not with them. A crash program to develop solar energy is what's needed. I don't agree with the analysis in this post at all.

We have serious problems, and overpopulation is at the center of them, unless 80% of the world's people commit to living like third world starving citizens forever, and I don't think they'd like that idea.

[Palemoon]

How to achieve energy independence? Easy, take it out of the hands of the capitalists. They are the people solely responsible for the suppression of technologies and alternative energies for the past 60 years or more.

[tjfdownsouth]

You forgot congress and the lobbyist. They are the ones who set up the subsidies and tax shelters. If congress would get out of the energy business then the "capitalists" would not be able to stear us in any direction that we did not want to go.

[Givethemhellharry]

There is a simple solution, that no one seems to recognize. Ther are 1 Billion cars on the roads of the world each day. Each generates electricity quickly for the starter battery and then in essence throws away what is not needed. Here in Africa we store that electricity and use it to light lights, TV, refrigerator, computer, etc. This is FREE electricity as the vehicle consumes no additional fuel. Works great on large and small cars. It is faster to charge than solar, a lot cheaper to install, not dependent on the weather and can be used anyplace the vehicle travels. See aaes-ltd.com for more information. dealer and investor inquiries invited.

[Joethepauper]

That's a great idea. Another useless watse of energy is a car's brakes. When you use your brakes, all that gas you burned to get to that speed is wasted in friction. There is a new technology that UPS is using on some of it's trucks (and I think the Tesla Roadster, also) that saves that kinetic energy for whenever it's time to go again. Smarter stoplights would be great too, but I doubt there is any money or political will to change something so wasteful. Smarter drivers and less cars on the road would be perfect, but that would mean the implementation of the only idea that makes any sense: I.Q. tests for people who want to breed. If your score is too low, you can still adopt. Those with higher I.Q.s wouldn't just be allowed to breed recklessly (as the least intellectually curious of our species are doing now....and yes, I'm talking to you too, octomom), and the gene pool would slowly get better. Quality vs. quantity. The average Saudi Arabian family has 13 children, and something like 52% of Saudi marriages are between first or second cousins. It's about QUALITY, not QUANTITY....Pass it on!

[Rog49Thomas]

The solution one simple word: maturity.

The probability one simple word: unlikely.

[theone718]

Fantastic article.

The economic crisis, health care, two wars, and immigration reform All problems that need to be fixed. However, at the end of the day I believe THIS is the one thing that will continue to make the case that Obama's Presidencies was in the top 3. This time can be the catalyst for ushering us into a new energy economy. His leadership will get us there and history will reward him for it exponentially.

[Y2KCockroach]

"Energy independence" will require much more in the way of creative thinking than Zakaria mentioned in his article. For example, it will require fundamental changes in the way that we construct and build out our cities. We need to reduce our reliance upon the automobile. We will need to stop building suburbs, and start living within the cities that we work. We will need to get used to living in condominiums, and not McMansions. We will need to severely curtail the "consumer economy" that we thrive on today (i.e plastic packaging, packages containing "one serving", disposable items, and built-in obsolescence). We will need to alter our eating habits, deriving much more of our protein from plants as opposed to animals. There is plenty more that we can do, but that we don't do. And let us not be pollyannish about the heft of the burden that we face. We are not "starving" Chavez and the Saudis if we cut our reliance upon oil; we will be starving Exxon, and that is a much bigger foe to tangle with.

[EdWeirdo]

Y2K-- your points are more inline with where I was hoping this article was headed. We are not held captive by the large corporations. Capitalism does work. Act locally, demand fewer products. Corporations will have less and less control. Their control is only because we are addicted to their stuff. Quite simple really

[SamKnause]

I disagree with you. Corporations due control us, because laws were passed to allow them to do this. If Hemp were legal to grow in the U.S. many of our environmental problems could be solved along with economical problems. What stops us from doing this. The laws that our government passed in favor of the big oil companies, cotton growers, plastic makers, big pharmaceutical companies, paper companies, and private prisons. This was brought up at the town hall on line meeting, and our President laughed it off as unimportant. If it is against the law to grow the crop that can save us, how can you say that the big corporations don't control us?

[Gasparilla]

We should not just accept the fact of 9 billion people on this planet. Maybe there isn't much more we can do than promote worldwide availability of contraception and education, but we should make overpopulation a priority. We also need to address immigration to this country, which is the main cause of our population growth. It's hard to reduce energy usage when every advance on that front is countered by a growing population.

[Joethepauper]

Exactly right! If you look at all of the major problems in the world, population is the CAUSE of all of them. A massive war will have to come along and get rid of all the surplus people if we don't solve the problem reasonably and quickly. Besides the aquisition and protection of resources (which happen to be located on another country's soil), the main reason for war is one that I never hear mentioned by ANYONE. War is a convenient way to dispose of society's "troublemakers". The members of any society who cause the most violent crime, and have the most dysfunctional breeding habits are usually males between the ages of 16 and 25 (and often minorities). Who usually joins the military? Who usually gets drafted if there is a draft? Who is it on the front lines of the opposing side? War accomplishes two goals of the elites in one action. They use the expendable surplus males to aquire and protect the resources they and their corporations depend on to stay rich and get re-elected (with some of the proceeds of the venture described above). I'm not against DEFENSE, there is a good reason to have a military, and I salute the people who selflessly volunteer to be used for the greater good. I propose that we use our military for it's intended purpose. There is a difference between Offense and Defense. We have a Dept. of "Defense" that apperently hasn't picked-up a dictionary for awhle.

[JnrNorman]

Investment in mass transit is neccesary.


No talk about the institution that
not only encouraged the bubble to form
but fueled the fire.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/585.html

[lumpyspun]

Zakaria says nothing that is not already widely known in this article. If you haven't read it yet, save yourself the time and just read the summary on Huffpo. I know Zakaria is powerful and people listen to him, but we don't really need him on this front anymore with Bush out of office. He should stick to talking about Pakistan.

He is preaching to the choir with this administration. Obama's selection of Steven Chu as Energy makes up for all his other questionable cabinet choices. Congress is already working (seriously working) on climate capping legislation and the stimulus package contained 80 billion dollars of energy saving and renewable energy investment, including smart grid and transmission.

[ResistanceisFutile]

He starts with a bogus premise. The world should not be planning for a population of nine billion.

It should be making every effort to avoid a nine billion population and infact strive for a population of two billion, a long term sustainable population.

Should the world's population hit nine million it will collapse from food and water shortages.

Yes we need energy independence and we need greener energy sources. However, we must work on the population issue simultaneously.

[lumpyspun]

Very good post, which is why people like Octomom should be sent from the delivery room right to jail.

I really believe that our country (and others) should start to have serious discussions about limiting people to the number of kids they are allowed to have. Personally, I would cap it at 3. I'm even fine with a cap and trade system, but 3 would be my magic number.

[Austrian School]

People like Octomom should be sent from the delivery room right to jail?

I don't even know what to say to this type of inflammatory rhetoric. Let's just say that in a free country, like America, you should be able to have as many babies as your blown out vagina will allow.

What you espouse is totalitarian nonsense. That's something the Chinese Communists do.

And finally, it's not America that's contributing to the 'overpopulation' of the world, its countries like China and India. Most of our population growth comes from immigration.

Now, are you against that too?

[Just4theHalibut]

So, it would be ok with you for the population to reach 12 billion within a generation ~25 years, probably in your lifetime? That's what 3 per couple would give you.
As a first step the US needs to stop encouraging more than 2 kids (as we do through tax deductions, etc).

I sincerely hope we don't reach 2 billion in my lifetime, it would mean there had been some horrible world-wide flu/plague, or displacement/death of refugees from coastal flooding-- and its ironic counterpart, severe drought; or some rogue nation used its atomic weaponry. Unfortunately those scenarios are not so far-fetched.

[Decipherer]

Um, what is your proposal to reduce the population of the planet by two-thirds? I have to believe that there could be some exception taken to mass sterilization and/or mass euthanasia at, say, age 75, but that's just me.

Don't get me wrong, because as you can see from my posts below, I agree that a global population of nine billion people would bring about a collapse of the ecosystem and an involuntary culling of species homo sapien, which would be vastly more unpleasant than other means.

We simply cannot continue growing the population, depleting resources, and loading the atmosphere with CO2 if we intend to survive.

[ResistanceisFutile]

This is a gradual process, but it must begin sooner than later.

[Myshkin57]

We're not getting down to 2 billion within any of our lives. How about we just try to keep the population stable but expect it to grow, because it will?

[DailyElitist]

Pray tell, just what exactly is a "sustainable" level of population anyways? That term gets thrown around an awful lot, but is virtually meaningless. Malthusians have been predicting an imminent collapse in the population for centuries now, and they've been proven wrong every time. Unfortunately, many have now taken it upon themselves to try to prove their anti-humanist delusion correct, since us disgusting human beings keep reproducing and innovating - much to the consternation of the extreme ecofascists.

A perpetually growing population is certainly possible, it merely requires expansion and/or innovation. We need only expand our knowledge and tap new resource bases - large-scale deployment of nuclear fission being the next logical iteration. Or, we could accept the Malthusian delusion and regress into feudalism and a new dark age. It's totally up to us; neither is an inevitability.

[Gasparilla]

There's only so much fresh water available. Desalinization is very expensive.

[artleads]

Based on this argument, there will be no need for conservation. Since nuclear energy will be virtually limitless, why not use up everything? There will always be energy. But what about home-based, micro-energy sources? Home-based (domestic) wind and solar -- if you need more energy than roof solar or home based windmill (or micro-nuclear plant!) can provide, you're using too much energy.

Given that any single source of energy is beleaguered in one way or another, I say we work a) to get off big energy (by radical conservation and home-based energy supply) that must be transmitted by grid, and b) in the meantime, create a balance of power and constructive collaboration between all other established or emerging energy sources, (including hemp :-)).

I used to poohoo the notion of population control, being certain that lifestyle was far more determinative of climate change than were numbers alone. I still feel that way, but now see that we must factor in the global reach of western-style consumption as the default model for development everywhere.

This ship of universal demand for the western lifestyle cannot turn on a dime. A lifestyle such as most Americans enjoyed prior to WWII, I venture to guess, would be sustainable for 10 billion. Since, even with enormous effort, returning to this “lifestyle” (only considering its environmental impacts) might be out of reach, it seems likely that worldwide population control will also be needed.

[Paulo1]

Energy independence is a political and cultural issue not a technological one I can get to the corner grab a bus to the train station (5 minutes) take the train to New York ( A very pleasant few hours of relaxation with no shoe checks) grab the subway to the Met, take a nice walk through Central Park to see show and never touch a car. Public transport and my own two feet the whole way.

I traveled to London and never set foot in a car for two weeks, never missed it and never felt like I was inhibited in any way.

I travel to Toronto all the time and the worst part is finding and paying for parking for a car I will not use the whole time I am there.

If you want energy independence go for infrastructure. Better and more complete train and subway systems. Having a car should be a way to get from a rural home to the nearest subway and short distance electric is a simple enough car to build.

[Paul]

Yup.

The price of energy independence is the personal automobile.

Get people out of their cars and into mass transit. Then watch the price of oil drop to $12/barrel.

[Decipherer]

And then you tax ALL petroleum products at, say, $3.00 - 3.50 per gallon and you've got a huge portion of a genuine energy strategy done and dusted.

[Myshkin57]

For that to have the type of impact we'd want, though, we need to make the urban centers capable of handling many more people and expand jobs in cities. You can't make mass transit work as a solution unless the people live and work near it.

Personally, I've been looking to move to a city for years, but I have to go where I can get a job in my field.

[SamKnause]

The price of oil fluctuates for two reasons, if we use to much they raise the price, if we conserve and use less they raise the price. The price of oil is always going to be an issue until we can get by on much less and make energy here in the U.S. and stop importing foreign oil. We have the technology to be energy independent but the big oil companies put a stop to almost every new product that threatens their profits. One example of this was the electric car made by GM called the E1. The big oil companies killed it.

[trimom]

"If only cars ran on cognitive dissonance" , Lewis Black.

[Luvial]

How many years will it take for the government to even adopt the use compact flourescent light bulbs? They are spending other people's money and have low intelligence.

[Tommi2]

Luvial,
There is a big problem with the use and promotion of CFL bulbs. Mercury in small amounts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

The future of efficient, low energy non-toxic lighting is LED (light emitting diode) lighting. I use it in my business and have seen a remarkable leap of it's use commercially and residentially. Low heat output and a cleaner, whiter light. CFL lighting is a toxic problem when the bulbs break and should be carefully recycled.
LED lighting costs will slowly come down the more it's used and mainstreamed.

[Luvial]

Thansk for the tip. I have an LED flashlight. I will look for LED light bulbs when my CFL bulbs burn out over the next several years.

[SamKnause]

I can't believe that the CFL light bulbs were even approved. The mercury poisons your house if it breaks. When you send it to the dump and it breaks it poisons the ground. They should never have been approved. I agree with you LED is the way to go.

[JimBozo]

Several years ago, my family and I switched every incandescent bulb in our house to CFLs, in addition to the traditional fluorescent tube fixtures we already had in use. I recently had to replace the first dead CFL. LEDs last almost forever, and the prices for them continue falling. There should be an energy-waste tax imposed on incandescent bulbs, and a lower one on CFLs and conventional fluorescent tubes. The proceeds could be used to subsidize LED pricing, until the economy of scale effect cuts in.

You can already buy an LED equivalent to almost any type of bulb or tube, but the price is a bit off-putting, in spite of the longevity factor. The energy savings to our country's economy and energy infrastructure would be amazing, if we just did a total switch-over to LED lighting.