At the end of this week, I'm scheduled to fly to the Persian Gulf. Most likely, I'll get to Abu Dhabi for the World Energy Future Summit. But the current saber rattling around the possibility that IF Europe proceeds with oil sanctions against Iran, and that IF Iran retaliates by shutting the Strait of Hormuz, that we might then find ourselves with a massive increase in the price of oil and war to boot makes the trip slightly less predictable than just a few weeks ago.
It's pathetic that we find ourselves here, almost fifty years after the first oil embargo and crisis in 1973, still utterly dependent on a single hydrocarbon molecule from a tiny, unstable, and largely hostile corner of the world, to conduct the very basics of our civilization. My working career had just begun with the first crisis, and its great gasoline lines, rationing, 50-mph speed limits, and gnashing of teeth. President Nixon promised we would "end our addiction." So have Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and the second Bush. (Reagan was elected by an oil crisis, but didn't face one -- in fact much of his political success was due to the fact that oil prices, in real terms, fell steadily during his term. President Obama has been more modest in his rhetoric, if more robust in his actions.)
Now 40 years later, nothing much has happened. The world is still dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and it is dependent in spite of the fact that we have readily available alternatives, and a host of reasons (other than energy security) to wish ourselves rid of the noxious substance and the industry that provides it to us.
Just look at this week's "Ten Reasons to Stop Relying on Oil."
10) We wouldn't be seriously considering turning much of Alberta into a moonscape to extract its tar sands oil because the Persian Gulf oil producers have carefully notched the price up to just the level where someone could make a profit doing so.
9 ) We wouldn't have to put up with the spectacle of the American Petroleum Institute trying to bully President Obama into approving this pipeline -- whose actual impact would be to raise America's oil prices AND oil imports bill -- with the threat of "huge political consequences" if he doesn't simply ignore the facts and rush an approval forward.
8) The House Republicans would not have held up approval of basic extensions of Social Security Tax moratoria and unemployment benefits unless the president went along with their crazy plan to -- um, get the pipeline approved by forcing him to reject it? There is already enough insanity in Congress without adding this.
7) We would long ago have established the principle that when enormous oil companies like BP and Chevron despoil communities, they must clean up the mess they made -- rather than getting into a blame game in which Chevron says that the toxic disaster it left behind in Ecuador is the fault of the Ecuadorian oil company. That these shenanigans are outrageous was confirmed again yesterday when an Ecuadorean appeals court told Chevron that, yes, it really does have to pay the $9.5 billion in damages awarded against it there. But Chevron will appeal.
6) We wouldn't be wondering when BP will provide fair compensation to the victims of its Macondo gusher-in-the-Gulf. BP says that the oil catastrophe at the Macondo platform is the fault of its drilling partner, Halliburton. Meanwhile, it keeps dribbling out payments to those whose lives and livelihoods it destroyed. This week the payments stopped again -- for the umpteenth time -- before resuming.
5) Everyone would know that if the 20th Century belonged to the internal combustion engine powered by oil, the 21st Century will belong to something better -- some combination of electrification and biofuels. As a result, the U.S. auto industry, still recovering from its near-death addiction to cheap gas, would be able to get ready for further competition with foreign manufacturers with a clear game plan and a much better prospect for success.
4) As a result, we would be moving forward aggressively to build the green transportation economy of the future. Congress would not have gone home having left the nation's long-term transportation infrastructure unfunded, and the House Republican leadership would not have held up the debt-ceiling bill in an effort to deprive the U.S. of its chance for leadership in advanced vehicle manufacturing.
3) Oil industry behemoths like the Koch brothers wouldn't be able to hijack our democracy by investing millions in rigging elections, with their latest ploy being the effort to ensure that any Republican nominee is completely subservient to the interests of Big Oil, and proves it by pretending, regardless of what he really believes, that there is inadequate scientific basis to worry about global warming.
2) We wouldn't be shipping hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of jobs to the Persian Gulf, while the New York Times plaintively editorialized "This country needs a comparably broad strategy that will create a pathway from the fossil fuels of today to the greener fuels of tomorrow. We are under no illusions that such an appeal by Mr. Obama would win support among Republicans on Capitol Hill. House Republicans voted 191 times last year to undermine existing environmental protections or reject Democratic efforts to strengthen them." Instead, we would have a real economic recovery with real wages and livelihoods for the American people.
1) Oh, and did I mention that we wouldn't be looking at the prospect of another war over the Strait of Hormuz?
The way you know you have an addiction is if you keep doing something even though it hurts you. Our reliance on oil has been hurting us, phenomenally, at least since 1973. No one seriously denies it. But in spite of the fact that we could move our cars with electricity, and our goods on rail, our planes on biofuels; and in spite of our knowledge that at least half of the fuel we use each year is simply wasted, delivering no valuable transportation services; we keep on doing it. We keep on doing it even though the president -- without an act of Congress -- could simply establish a binding national policy that every year we will import less oil, until we stop completely.
If this were a Bond movie, there would be an evil character somewhere cackling, as once again we prepare to send our young men and women to die in the Persian Gulf. ("Those fools," he would mutter.) But there is no evil character. The oil exporters and the oil companies that feed our petroleum fix believe they are saving civilization.
And we listen to them. As my friend and Atlantic national correspondent James Fallows has educated me, frogs don't sit still in a pot as it is brought to a boil -- however slowly. When it hurts, they jump. Frogs, fortunately for them, cannot be lied to.
But addicts can. And apparently this country qualifies.
Follow Carl Pope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlPope
Our military spend billions on propaganda to get the wars they want.
And we fall for it every time.
Efficiency, waste bio char bio fuels, offshore wind and rooftop solar are cheaper then nukes, together, 24/7 using existing infrastructure, carbon negative, forever, clean safe, and ready to replace nukes coal and oil within a decade. If we only have the will.
Instead we give nukes 500M$ in breaks per reactor per year, coal even more, and oil: trillion dollars wars. Meanwhile green gets 1/100the of that total.
It would overnight end unemployment, end the global warming/peak oil menace, save the lives of tens thousands of Americans every year from coal/gas air pollution and create the greatest construction boom in history. The mass produced nukes are so much cheaper than the fossil fuels they replace, that the payback period on the replacement is less than three years - a 40% rate of return of investment.
NG electricity and heating applications would immediately convert to nuclear electricity. The freed up gas would be available for export, to make CNG, methanol, DME (propane), and synfuel transportation fuels as we transition to nuclear produced synfuels and electric vehicles.
Nukes can produce synfuel dirt cheap from hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen/carbon. A vehicle propane conversion kit can be easily adapted to ammonia.
Last time I checked, we heavily subsidize oil, which is dangerous and polluting, not only directly, but indirectly by spending trillions of dollars on our military to illegally procure the resource. Then the private oil companies get the profit. u.s. citizen taxpayer screwed again!
Being fooled, or downright lied to and manipulated, is the American Way. Oil is just a drop in the bucket.
How 'bout trade and exchange rate policies that set the stage for Americans to build China at their own expense, both literally (China is now the world's largest creditor nation, not America) and militarily (China uses much of its surplus U.S. dollars to build its military which now is substantial enough to be a threat). We owe them about $1,000,000,000,000.
Or, how 'bout our (not) Federal Reserve. It's not a Federal agency, but a private corporation with private shareholders who are guaranteed a 6% dividend. So, all those trillions the Fed prints... well those dollars are debt obligations to the American people, and -- like all debt -- interest is paid on it, in this case by you to the Fed's shareholders.
Feel dumb yet? I do, but I'm more perplexed than dumb, for when I explain this to my friends, their eyes roll... can't be bothered... alas, that's why we'll continue to be fooled, downright lied to and manipulated.
The sheep get sheared.
Baaaaaaa
Some facts that you might mention:
1. The United States consumes a minor percentage of the oil we import from the Middle East.
Much of the oil that we do import from the Middle East is refined and the products exported.
2. We can and must start production in the ANWR in Alaska.
This WILL NOT negatively impact the environment, but it will help bring oil prices down and reduce imports.
3. We can and must start using natural gas as a motor fuel on a much larger scale.
It works in Brazil and many other countries. It will work here.
4. If you are really serious about electric vehicles, you know we will need more nuclear plants to provide the electricity.
Wind and solar cannot supply baseload. Certainly geothermal can though and we ought to be using it more.
And yes, we need to seriously invest in Thorium technologies for both power and to burn the waste products from Uranium fueled reactors.
5. If you are really serious about the environment, you will go after the world's largest polluter - China.
Don't forget about the soon to be second largest polluter - India.
In 20 years, the USA will fall out of the top 10 global polluters list even if we do nothing.
So it is useless for us to destroy our economy and export our jobs to meet arbitrary new standards.
If you are serious about the environment?!? rediculous question. A CEO making less than about 250K per year?
We are putting up 60 to 80% more solar per year, and the possiblility is for 500+GW in 20 years. At this rate EV's will never come close to using the output. And if we invent better panels and batteries?
We may use less oil directly from the Middle East-- but it still dictates world prices!--and if the rest of the world can't buy from there--who will the world be bidding against for a portion of the oil from our major suppliers??
The math has been done and vetted--wind and solar can provide enough energy IF we also reduce consumption through better designed products and simple conservation! (also biofuel, energy from waste, and several other contributors)
Leave the oil for our farmers and country folk who must drive long distances and use farm equipment (until we can get better options)=== do the math about 90% of us live in or around cities.
After reducing trucker miles (use rail for long hauls)-using better design-and biofuels==MPG could be tripled as we work on other options.
get people and jobs closer together (not drive until you can afford a roof)--we WASTE most of our energy!----
Wal Mart increased "miles per gallon" by 30% for it's fleet of trucks-- just by demanding a better designed truck for it's fleet (notice the difference? I can't)
the Empire State Building is 40% more efficient after retrofit that was done at the price of "repairs" that had to be done because of age.
Why do we not build a light rail with every freeway lane we add? To build a freeway costs over $2million a mile!
Rather, we make it easier to drive everywhere, build more parking structures in our cities, subsidize the gas and oil companies.
" We keep on doing it even though the president -- without an act of Congress -- could simply establish a binding national policy that every year we will import less oil, until we stop completely."
are why I don't take Carl Pope seriously. Does he forget that Congress makes the laws? Did he really think that just because President Carter said:
"Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this Nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977—never. "
Jimmy Carter
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3402
that it would magically happen?
You libs and extreme left start practicing what you preach, you will be more credible.
the ones "crying in the wilderness" are SO easy to ignore! --- shut up and go away doesn't work
BTW-- my electricity comes from hydro!--- and coal will be with us for some time but that doesn't mean you can't get it as clean as possible!...Obama isn't driving it out of business- he is making them obey regs they have been ignoring for 20 years!
No problem with progress in cleaner standards, but the regs must be reasonable with the deadlines. We started improving mileage on our vehicles 40 years ago, but it has been a slower timeline, giving the technical aspects and budgets time to adjust. Cleaner means more expensive and our cars and fuels are more expensive because of the regs. Same with coal power and it will take more time for the plants to adjust and match their cash flow requirements. Otherwise, they adjust their prices upwards in a more chaotic way and we are all affected in our power bills. The poor and middle class suffer the most when power goes up.
Consider policies that have been supported by Administrations in just the last 10 years or so. First it was the "hydrogen highway" and the "hydrogen economy" of the early Bush years, a rope-a-dope strategy designed to do, I don't really know what. Anyone with any level of energy literacy knew that hydrogen is not a primary fuel and its vehicle/infrastructure issues were almost insurmountable. We then had the ethanol boom, and governors across the country cut ribbons at ethanol fueling stations. Then energy balance, food prices and technology challenges of cellulosic ethanol brought this approach into serious question. Fast forward to the Obama administration's singular focus on the electrification of the transportation system -- a long, tough slog at best, with little work on the very complicated regulatory infrastructure and grid enhancements that are necessary to enable it.
These are very complicated issues, not amenable to slogans or poll-tested answers. Carl did not offer much in the way of solutions and it is demonstrably not easy.
Century head start or no, climate change is upon us and emprically observable at this point, we don't even need the models. We need massive efficiency programs in all sectors and we need to get off coal power generation and switch to gas. These are the only two near term, SCALABLE options we have for large scale reductions in CO2 emissions and early, immediate action is essential.