Let me engage in a piece of meta-wonkerific self-reference and quote myself:
"Energy security" is a lopsided way of framing our energy problem, and left un-balanced, will do more harm than good.
I said that in the context of talking about coal -- the enemy of the human race -- but this week brought another piece of evidence from a different quarter.
Lots of energy types think the most readily available, cheapest substitutes for conventional (imported) petroleum are unconventional sources like oil shale, heavy oil, and synthetic fuel via Fischer-Tropsch (i.e., coal-to-liquid).
They may be right that these sources can gain us energy independence, but as a new study shows, they'll also bring environmental catastrophe. Says co-author Alex Farrell ...
... we conclude that the environmental risks associated with this transition [away from oil] are much bigger than the risk to a country’s economy or the security of their fuel supply.
Exactly.
We have two problems: dependence on declining fossil fuels from hostile countries, and global warming. Solving the latter will almost certainly solve the former. The converse is not true.
The hidden cost of coal
Comments
View as Flat
Bart Anderson Posted 7:43 pm
11 Dec 2006
Many dirty fuels are cheaper than renewables, and have powerful interests backing them. As Jason is sure to point out, the dirty fuels are often the recipients of generous subsidies.
I'd like to make a meta-point, though, if I might.
As I hop from site to site, looking for articles on energy, I find that most sites have a silo mentality: We believe in position X for reasons X-1, X-2, and X-3.
Position Y has shortcomings Y-1, Y-2 and Y-3. (Alternately: people with Position Y are dishonest, stupid, or brainwashed.)
The solution is to attack Position Y, thus gaining support for Position X.
The underlying assumption is that once we convince people of the right ideas, we will have harmony and concerted action.
I'm coming to think that this model is not appropriate for energy and environmental issues. For example, in the case of energy security vs global warming, we have two different interest groups. It doesn't matter how much you prove that energy security is a bad concept, there will still be groups who will have that as a goal.
As another example, at Gristmill, Jason Scorse holds high the flag of traditional economics. Others take their inspiration from "Limits to Growth" or Daniel Quinn. Argue as much as we like, we are never all going to embrace the same viewpoint.
Instead of arguing about ultimate truth, a different way of proceeding might be: Understanding the different viewpoints - listening to the different interest groups.
Looking carefully to find areas of agreement.
Documenting and verifying areas of difference.
Getting back to David's post, I'm convinced that there are many areas of agreement between the global warming and energy security camps, especially as one goes beyond the superficial kneejerk reactions. For example, both want better mileage standards for cars. Neither wants to have wars over oil and gas.
Of course, there still will be conflict and disagreement. But at least we can move forward, without getting bogged down in repetitive, wasteful arguments.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:40 am
12 Dec 2006
I absolutely agree with your 3 points about how to proceed.
Sometimes I get the sense at Grist that just because not everyone immediately falls in line with someone's given argument that all the hand-wrangling is somehow a "waste of time" or "unproductive"- big ideas and big issues take a long time to change and opinion is not like an on and off switch. I think we shouldn't shy away from the big debates even where there is little agreement. The consensus may form- it may take 1 year, 3 years, 5 or 20.
I wouldn't necessarily classify my views as traditional economics- I majored in behavioral economics at UC-Berkeley, which is all about abberations from classical assumptions and my views on animal welfare put me at odds with 99% of economists.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:37 am
12 Dec 2006
There is, in short, politics.
Right now there's rising pressure over environmental problems, particularly global warming. This makes the powers that be uncomfortable. So along comes energy independence, which looks kind of like environmental concern but also allows you to look macho and back huge (and generous) corporate interests.
Greens, perhaps relieved not to be so isolated, seem to be welcoming this shift with open arms. Finally a coalition, right?
If the environmental movement was actually a movement and not a flailing cacophony, it would be putting this message out into the public bloodstream: energy independence is a worthy goal, but it's not a substitute for fighting global warming.
Your proposed strategy is quite reasonable and balanced, but as I've said before, the efficacy of reason and balance are grossly overestimated by the reasonable and balanced. I don't know or care about "ultimate truth," but I care about political power -- who wields it, and which direction it's pushing. As a concerned citizen, I consider it one of my jobs to do what I can to push it in the right direction.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 12:08 am
13 Dec 2006
Moreover, one can begin to sympathize with other points of view, even while maintaining one's own. This makes it easier to find common ground and develop alliances.
And developing alliances is at the heart of politics.
This is especially true for energy and sustainability. For one thing, I don't think anybody has developed a reliable roadmap for the transition we must make. It's a damned complicated business, getting off of fossil fuels.
It's like the Hindu story of the elephant and the blind men. Each touches a part, and declares he's found the true nature of the beast.
The green movemement, as much as I am a part of it, has gaping blind spots when it comes to energy. The vision is great, but the wishful thinking is an impediment. Also, the greens by themselves will never make policy. Somehow, we have to make alliances and influence others.
The energy independence push is an impromptu coalition, rather than a concerted campaign. Some energy companies are eager to develop local resources, whatever the environmental consequences. Other people, in the military and intelligence communities, are more far-seeing. Some of the best, most critical analyses are coming out of the military (we've published several at Energy Bulletin). Large numbers of Americans are receptive to Thomas Friedman's nationalistic quasi-environmental message.
Is there some way to cobble together a energy/climate/sustainability coalition modelled on the New Deal? Some way to go beyond our own comfortable ideologies, to get something done?
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 12:26 am
13 Dec 2006
The discussions seem to work best when focussed on specific issues or facts. Less well when we are trying to change the worldview of the other person. (Though I actually don't think I'm as far off from you as it may seem - some of my best friends have been libertarians!)
Bart
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:14 am
13 Dec 2006
Made worse by hostile countries that now have nuclear power, that they are turning into nuclear weapons. A primary reason for invasion, occupation, and nation building. Never forget Condi's "mushroom clouds".
So forget solving global climate disaster with nuclear power.
But you forgot a new technology that turns oil shale, low grade oil, tar sand oil, or coal of any grade into natural gas without mining and processing. Bacteria injected in wells drilled to harvest the natural gas do that biochemically.
This gas, along with biogas from waste, fed into fuel cell/turbines with the cO2 procesed through algae solar systems could solve all three problems caused by nuclear and fossil fuel power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:34 am
13 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:39 am
13 Dec 2006
(1) Convince majority of greenies that capitalists are not necessarily evil.
(2) Convince majority of greenies that scientists are not necessarily evil.
(3) Examine the responses of developing nations to the growing pollution crisis in their countries. It appears that nations like China know they have to take action not to reduce global warming but to protect the health of their citizens. And they are or will be interested in efficient means of building their economies and preserving health of citizens.
(4) Convince corporations that they can make a bundle of money off of this if they develop the technology, patent it, and sell it to everyone who will need it.
(5) Convince federal and state governments that they will benefit by subsidizing this research, which preserves some illusion of U.S. having conntrol over its future.
(6) Convince federal and state governments that this should all serve as a foundation for providing workers in this country with a living wage... without income, there are no taxpayers, and without taxpayers, there is no country.
(7) Military/Industrial complex, motivated by desire for self preservation, will hop on board at some point during this process.
But I'm skeptical about any of this happening.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:06 am
14 Dec 2006
I have been trying that for years, the job revival, real competitive capitalism approach. I think it would work if we could get the media to cover it.
Individual homeowners and small businesses that are going to renewable solutions and saving/making money off of their investments in renewables.
Convincing big business and big government is only possible if they are forced by overwhelming public opinion. Look at this Iraq fiasco. Finally public opinion driven by media becoming a bit more truthy (truthiness abounds, hehey) is turning that policy a little. The revelation that the neo-rat administration is only reporting less than 10% of attacks in Iraq, for instance.
Can we expect more truthiness around renewable energy? No. But maybe blogland can force these issues into the delusional corporate media spotlight?
If only we could come up with a sex scandal involving renewable energy! Hehehey.
Would George Clooney do it with Angela Jolie on a solar panel or in a hybrid plugin car? For his country as a patriotic duty and/or to save the world? Just do it George!!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink