The Politics of Energy -- Just Smoke and Reflective Solar Panels?
Charles Krauthammer posts a column about energy policy and the promises of our politicians.
Better living through chemistry? Probably not.Is there anything more depressing than yet another promise of energy independence in yet another State of the Union address? By my count, 24 of the 34 State of the Union addresses since the oil embargo of 1973 have proposed solutions to our energy problem.
The result? In 1973 we imported 34.8 percent of our oil. Today we import 60.3 percent.
And what does this president propose? Another great technological fix. For Jimmy Carter, it was the magic of synfuels. For George Bush, it's the wonders of ethanol. Our fuel will grow on trees. Well, stalks, with even fancier higher-tech variants to come from cellulose and other (literal) rubbish.
It is very American to believe that chemists are going to discover the cure for geopolitical weakness. It is even more American to imagine that it can be done painlessly. Ethanol for everyone. Farmers get a huge cash crop. Consumers get more supply. And the country ends up more secure.
This is nonsense. As my colleague Robert Samuelson demonstrates, biofuels will barely keep up with the increase in gasoline demand over time. They are a huge government bet with goals and mandates and subsidies that will not cure our oil dependence or even make a significant dent in it.
Comments
They are making these statements to pacify the citizenry. That's all it amounts to. OK, so we switch to Ethanol. The price of corn goes up, it impacts the Mexicans who survive on tortillas. Now, they can't afford to eat. OK, I am eexaggerating, but let's look at transportaion. It has to be trucked, cannot use pipelines, so our highways get clogged with thousands more truck. Yeah..
That's a solution. And one that we need to move on.
An Alaskan drilling solution does not have to be an environmental nightmare. No one would let that happen.
The area that would be drilled is tiny in comparison to the total, and is basically a vast wasteland anyway. We heard the same tripe about the Alaskan pipeline, and yet the carribou population around the pipeline has exploded.
Drill, I say, drill!
The solution need not be either/or, this is a false dichotomy. A marginal reduction in oil consumption and hence dependence is certainly possible with improved mileage standards (to match the level of China at least) and an elimination of light truck / SUV exemption. Subsidies for a wide range on diversification strategies are feasible through taxes on oil companies profits.
In any case, I would be cautious about swallowing another brilliant argument to stay the course from the Neo-con's poster boy. What Krauthammer has failed to realize, even this far into the Iraq War, is that there are limits to US power in the world and we cannot dominate the source of our dependency indefinitely.
And as for those who want to drill in Alaska, I think they should take a trip to Prince William Sound.
The Exxon Valdez disaster was a tragedy, no doubt about it. But the major contibuting factor had little to do with the general risk posed by the oil companies activities there, and more to do with skippers hitting the sauce before piloting a single hulled tanker through a reef.
I think that with new technology and plenty of safeguards (most of which have already been put in place since the events of Prince William Sound) we can be reasonably assured that such a venture would not only be safe but of great benefit to American interests.
I would argue that whatever danger we might do to the environment in Alaska pales in comparison to the danger that we are courting by importing our oil from the middle east. I hate having my dollars at the pump put in the pockets of Wahhabist radicals funding the detonation of car bombs in Baghdad.
As a final point. I find it interesting that so many people are against drilling in ANWR over concern for the damage that could be done to the environment, but they remain remarkably silent about the drilling operations being carried out in the countries we're currently importing our oil from.
I guess the lesson is from all of this (including the original post) is that politicians say a lot about the problem and lack action.
Krauthammer's proposal to raise oil prices to $4 a gallon is ridiculous. As any economist would tell you... this may change some behavior depending on the elasticity of demand, but more than likely it would spark of an inflationary spiral. Moreover, he seems to favor a solution which is blatantly regressive rather than taxing oil companies. I wonder why?
His suggestion to drill in ANWR contradicts his argument about willingess to bite the bullet and make immediate changes. Moving the oil out of ANWR would take at least a decade as the infrastructure has not yet been put in place. And of course it is curious that he is once again so willing to serve the interests of big oil companies. I wonder why?
In any case, ANWR is a wildlife preserve and believing that our new technology would not endanger the area is the height of hubris. Take a look at at the recent Congressional investigation of BP's mainenance practices along the Alaskan pipeline and Prudhoe Bay.
Nuclear energy is a no go solution in America to anyone who has heard of Three Mile Island.
Thus, we are back at more practical solutions that attempt marginal reductions through reasonable incentives... If properly calibrated, they could outpace some measure dependence on foreign oil and at the very least diversify the sources of energy dependence.
2.) Drilling ANWR is not going to destroy the environment and it will not take a decade to put the infrastructure in place. My guess just a few years. You think the oil companies will sit around allow that to a be a slow process? It took three years to build the Alaska pipeline and that was thirty some years ago. Imagine what engineers can do today. And imagine how they can design it such that corrosion and maintenance practices are even more environmentally friendly.
3.) As for nuclear energy, I remember reading an article talking about how even if we build lots of nuclear facilities it wouldn't solely solve our energy needs. That said, Three Mile Island was a long time ago. And last time I checked nuclear plants continue to run in this country -- safely.
I think a sensible approach to solving our energy needs and eliminating our dependency on foreign energy sources is moving on all fronts: ANWR, nuclear energy, increasing standards, moving on solar/wind energy solutions, etc.
I don't understand where your faith in the oil industry comes from. Did you not hear about the Baker Report? Or the Texas refinery explosion in 2005 that killed 15 people?
Where is this technophilia coming from? Oil spills happen all too often and it takes years to clean up the mess. And let's not even get started on nuclear energy. Chernobyl is still hot.
Although the risks may appear low in terms of probability the cost is massive once it happens.
I guess that rules out hydrogen cars because the Hindenburg is still hot.
That's the American entrepreneur spirit! We are too stupid to figure out how to do things with an environmental conscience. GO USA!
Remember how DDT was thought to be safe, and then they discovered that it could cause cancer?
The point is, these are all examples of good ideas without proper thought into safety and environmental concerns. So if there are less risky alternatives, why not go for those?
I kind of go with dox^2 on this one. Accidents happen, learn from our mistakes, technology makes things safer, appropriate oversight prevents further mishaps.
I don't think we can't write off these options because of past failures based on old technology.
Dox^2: Dude, your sarcasm doesn't further your argument. And comparing the Hindenburg to Chernobyl is both preposterous and irrelevant. The argument is not about "packing it up" versus going ahead full steam; it is about which technologies are worth developing to marginally reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.
Ultimately, I will admit that the issue is not so much technology as managment (although I am still amused by the amount of unreflective confidence in engineering and science shown by you and others). Let me concede that with enough expertise we could make environmentally safe technology, but that does not mean that we could avoid accidents. It is not necessarily the technology but the fools who operate the technology that I really worry about. Even infrastructure which is vital to a corporation's profts like the Alaska pipeline have suffered systematic neglect due to poor management (see Baker Report) or look at the Union Carbide/Bhopal tragedy.
Given the likelihood of accidents, it only makes sense not to pursue nuclear technology further given the enormous consequences of a meltdown. The Hindenburg tragedy or the Challenger tragedies can be cleaned up and we can learn from them, a nuclear meltdown in the heart of the US is much more serious and would have massive, long term economic consequences.