Making the Tough Choices: Overcoming the Fear That Holds American Energy Policy in Neutral

There’s some tough choices we face as a nation as we struggle to create job growth and find sustainable energy sources to keep our economy moving.  For some of us the choice is a no-brainer.

We are at a point where our traditional sources of energy – coal and oil – are not only shrinking as finite sources will, but in our efforts to meet growing demand it takes greater efforts to remove them from their buried locations in the earth and below the seas, effecting rising costs while their toxic agents pollute our air and water.  They also contribute to the green house effect that is global warming.  We clearly need to find a substitute for these sources if we are to advance our civilization and prevent the disastrous consequences of increased CO2 in our atmosphere.

 

Worldwide Renewable energy, existing capacitie...

Image via Wikipedia

On the other hand the renewable sources that can meet this challenge have yet to be developed to a level that can handle the current payloads and steady supplies that coal and oil give us.  The infrastructure for 21st century energy sources of wind, solar, geo-thermal, wave, hydro-power and bio-mass are only now being developed but confront obstacles posed by the fossil fuel industry and to a small degree, some  environmentalist.

 

Current figures show that these renewable sources of energy provide only about 13% to the nation’s energy grid.  Logistics of delivery capabilities and storage are still not at a level that can supply large amounts during peak demand periods of very hot and very cold weather.  But these problems and conditions are surmountable once we get the nation and our political leaders behind this effort.

The other issue that confronts us as we work towards converting dirty, limited sources of energy to cleaner, renewable ones is how this conversion process will impact consumers and jobs.  An economic transition this massive in scope cannot happen over-night and will to some degree disrupt markets that impact jobs and prices.  The question that isn’t being presented cogently to the public is to what degree this conversion will negatively affect us and for how long.  Let’s see if we can put a little light on this in as brief a statement as possible.

Rates of oil production around the globe have already been cut simply because of growing global demands.   Some of the world’s “best paid, most widely respected geologists, physicists, bankers, and investors in the world” have already concluded that “peak oil” has been reached and we will start seeing further rates of production dropping in short order.  Increased shortfalls not only from limited supplies but from “above-ground factors” like wars, terrorism and massive climate change conditions of drought and floods will further effect production and could conceivably cut the total supply by 50% within the next few years, according to Jeff Vail, a Colorado business litigation attorney who writes frequently on systems theory, complexity, and geopolitics, and is actively involved with The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future.

Coal, the more abundant base supply of energy in the U.S. is also scheduled to peak soon.  Data supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) show the U.S. coal reserves could peak as early as 2032 and by the end of this century our coal-producing capacity will be nil in terms of need.  Similar outcomes are in store for our natural gas supplies.  This means we have at best a generation to be on-line to supply our children and grand-children with ready sources of energy if they are to live in a world that comes anywhere close to our heydays of the last century.

But in so doing what will happen to the jobs in the coal, oil and natural gas industries.  Well despite the bogus shrill by industry friendly politicians, these jobs will disappear anyway by default because their product is disappearing.  To create an overly scary scenario that job losses will occur because the EPA or some other federal agency is over-regulating the fossil fuel industry is a red herring that is promoted by industry executives trying to hold on to one of the most profitable businesses in history.

They know that return of investment (ROI) will increase as supplies dwindle and they are not ready to forgo this increase in their wealth to simply prepare for our future needs.  Thus they have paid millions to corporate-friendly scientist and politicians to spread an alarming message of increased fuel prices and job losses resulting from anything that blocks their path to achieve financial excesses.  Exxon/Mobil, Koch Industries and their political lobby front, the American Petroleum Institute (API) have initiated well-orchestrated campaigns to undermine the science that not only challenges their fear-mongering about jobs and price increases but also to subvert the science that speaks to climate change effected by man-made conditions attributable to fossil fuel use.

Today, the Republican controlled House Energy and Commerce Committee headed by Fred Upton will challenge the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act, with many already swearing to neuter the agency to prevent what they feel will “cost jobs and raise prices on consumer goods”.  No doubt the industry will have to pass on expenses to consumers to improve their facilities that currently contaminate our air and drinking water as well as add to anthropogenic global warming.  To offset these price increases some industries will eliminate jobs, not a popular action in lieu of our current unemployment crisis.

But such needed changes are essential to the health and economic well-being of our future and our children’s future.  The sacrifices that have to be made now will be paid back in spades down the short road of recovery.  As  senior fellow of the World Resources Institute Ruth Greenspan Bell points out here:

“When EPA promulgates regulations, industry often expresses concern that the regulations will cause extreme economic hardship. Now this argument is being made regarding EPA regulation of carbon pollution using existing legal authorities like the Clean Air Act.

In fact, there is extensive literature showing that the costs of environmental regulations are more than offset by a broad range of economic, public health and jobs-related benefits. Additionally, initial cost estimates are consistently found to be exaggerated. Economists and researchers who have compared actual costs with initial projections report that regulations generally end up costing far less than the dire predictions from industry and even, as an RFF study shows below cost projections by the Environmental Protection Agency.


As I mentioned earlier, the renewable sources that can meet our future energy needs have yet to be developed but this is in part due to the obstructionist efforts of oil and coal friendly legislators who constantly block needed funding and tax incentives to promote green technology.  The GOP Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Hal Rogers, recently announced a partial list of spending cuts they will be presenting for consideration.

In it is a request to cut $899 million from the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy whose total 2009 budget was only about $1.2 billion.  The mission of this agency is to “develop and deploy renewable energy sources and conversion technologies, as well as identify efficiency best practices, regulations and technologies that collectively strengthens our economy, protects the environment and increases national security.”

With an eye to the past rather than the future, the U.S. is lagging behind China and the EU to find ways to overcome our dependency on fossil fuels and stave off the dire consequences that our current energy policy is taking us.  The last thing we need are cuts in areas that promote development of clean, renewable energy if we are to remain competitive in world markets.

Despite the efforts of pro-oil and coal forces, the public is clearly ready to fully restore America’s economic strength by making long-term investments that will lead to new jobs and new industries that renewable sources will provide.  We can only hope that common sense and foresight will ultimately affect our representatives in the U.S. Congress

RESOURCES:

Peak Oil

Peak in U.S. coal production

national atlas.gov

About these ads

7 responses to “Making the Tough Choices: Overcoming the Fear That Holds American Energy Policy in Neutral

  1. It’s long past the day when the government needs to get on board with alternative fuels but alas, those who lobby for the oil industry and those who believe greenhouse effects are a fiction of Hollywood or the liberal agenda, keep those efforts on a short leash. I do think more people are coming to realize that fossil fuels will not last forever.

    • Thanks as usual for commenting Donna.

      Get all your friends to call their U.S. House representative and support efforts to have the EPA regulate greenhouse gases.

      BTW, when are you not in front of your computer or do you get my blog posts via an Ipod? You always respond so quickly.

  2. Completely agree, lbwoodgate.

    As you know, I have more in common with Republicans than Democrats, but the denial tactics of many Republican legislators annoys the piss out of me nonetheless. Imagine all the jobs and income new technologies could provide this nation, if only we would finally get serious about energy independence…

    Obviously, that’s my biggest concern. I don’t know enough about climate change to decide whether man is responsible or not. My biggest concern is energy independence and good paying jobs for the American worker;oil, coal, and other dirty resources have passed their zenith; it’s time for something better – and safer – that has the ability to not only provide good paying jobs, but oblige people to obtain an education.

    • It will be interesting (and I suspect irritating) Terrance to see how Republicans go about creating jobs other than investing in new technologies related to lowering our carbon output. It’s a field ripe for the picking but the GOP and some Democrats from oil and coal friendly state are unable to get past the short term perceptions of jobs now with the fossil fuel industry and those promising nascent jobs that will grow tremendously in renewable energy. I’m afraid we’re going to see nothing but the same old trickle down efforts from Boehner and others who seem to work more for corporate interests that focus on profits rather than jobs.

      • I’m certain Boehner is one of those legislators with irritating views on what our energy policy should be, but I like the man nonetheless; I have a lot of respect for him. I was quite moved when I seen him crying on 60 Minutes. I know you probably hate him, and cannot wrap your head around the idea that I would actually like and respect him, but that’s why we’re from different ends of the political spectrum.

        I just hope a catastrophe (economic or otherwise) doesn’t have to occur for these people to wake up. Out of control fuel prices would get the job done, I suspect, but it would hurt too many people, including myself. (And by out of control I mean way, way out of control.)

        I don’t know. Good post.

  3. first visit to your website. Good work. It’s way past time to alert the public to the disinformation agenda on climate change financed mostly by the biggest economic enterprise in history – fossil fuels.
    For those who have yet to read it, I recommend “”Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”
    by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

    and

    “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”
    by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

    Here’s some of the groups we are up against.

    These 32 organizations have all been involved in the tobacco industry’s campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
    They are all now involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.

    1. Acton Institute
    2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
    3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
    4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
    5. Americans for Prosperity
    6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
    7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
    8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
    9. Cato Institute
    10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
    11. Consumer Alert
    12. DCI Group (PR firm)
    13. European Science and Environment Forum
    14. Fraser Institute
    15. Frontiers of Freedom
    16. George C. Marshall Institute
    17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
    18. Heartland Institute
    19. Heritage Foundation
    20. Independent Institute
    21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
    22. International Policy Network
    23. John Locke Foundation
    24. Junk Science
    25. National Center for Public Policy Research
    26. National Journalism Center
    27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
    28. Pacific Research Institute
    29. Reason Foundation
    30. Small Business Survival Committee
    31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
    32. Washington Legal Foundation

    #5 and #9 are creations of the Koch brothers and they have their hands in several others.
    #24 is Steve Milloy’s group. Milloy is one of Fox News’ favorite climate experts. He’s not even a scientist but a professional PR man, and a registered and paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests. Has Fox ever disclosed this to viewers? I doubt it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s