I have to say I'm uneasy at the fact that the most prominent voices in favour of plug-in hybrids have been men like Tom Friedman and James Woolsey. For men like these, "energy security" is part of the wider war on terror. As Friedman is wont to say, we're at war, and lessening our dependency on oil is a necessary part of that war.
We'd like to believe that progressive causes can be made universal causes by trying to appropriate the language of national security. It would be great if we could sell the Republicans on the environment or clean energy by using their own language. But the history of this isn't great. As just one relevant example, the liberal red meat of humanitarian intervention went throught the meat grinder that is the Bush Administration, and came out Iraqi hamburger on the other end.
And we can see all over, solutions like PIHs or ethanol or biodiesel are sold, among other things, as cutting off the funds of the House of Saud. As just one example, this article on the Apollo Alliance's website (admittedly from the 2003 Democratic primaries) is all over "energy security," and points to wind, solar, and biofuels to wean us off the Persian Gulf teat.
There are a few problems with this. My lesser problem with it is the language presumes that it's desirable or necessary to impoverish the oil-exporting nations of the Earth, most of whom aren't run by Wahhabis, in case we'd forgotten. Really: Is further impoverishing Nigeria, or Bolivia, acceptable collateral damage? But I have a larger, more fundamental problem with this language, and it has to do with the consequences.
We can already see the problems of the "energy security" frame when it comes to the environment. Dave has chronicled the increasingly absurd lengths the U.S. is going to to make ethanol. This is a natural consequence of the "energy security" frame. If you make ethanol production a national security issue, then you make any kind of ethanol production not just acceptable, but necessary. So now we've got to make coal-fired, corn-grain ethanol plants to break the Saudi grip on our energy supply! Or else you love Osama! In short, if you make energy a military-industrial problem, you're going to get a military-industrial solution.
You can see where this is headed, if it continues. We've got to build clean coal plants (sold to us by darling children, no doubt) or you wish Saddam were still in power!
There was a moment there where it looked like we could get the Republicans to sign on with a sensible energy plan that helped America without creating a gigantic mess. But this is what happens when you take the fair damsel of renewable energy and put her in military fatigues. Instead, maybe Gore's film gives us a better option: Go back to the original (and in my mind, still superior) rationale: environmental sustainability.
As Gore's movie opens to a wider audience, there's a rare opportunity to sell the public on a better future, one that still has the national security benefits, but doesn't put those front-and-center. In truth, they don't even belong there. Environmentalists aren't supposed to be getting involved in fighting America's wars. We're supposed to be saving the world.
Comments
View as Threaded
Bart Anderson Posted 6:41 pm
12 Jun 2006
And yet...
I think you're posing a non-existent choice:
Energy independence, OR
Environmental sustainability
In the current political climate, sustainability is NOT on the table, much as I would like it to be.
The choice is between:
Energy independence, OR
Wars for oil
Energy independence is a MUCH better alternative. Even if ethanol is a dumb solution, it's way better than a festering series of wars in the Middle East and Latin America. It is very encouraging that hawks and ex-CIA directors see this too.
Energy independence is a rational response, whether or not one agrees with it. One can reason with conservatives on these issues, whereas it is not possible to reason with Bush & Co. on their Holy Wars.
There is at least an agreement that it would be good to pay attention to energy, not to waste, to find alternatives. We can start out by talking about hybrids, then go on to talk about how much energy would be saved by electrified trains or walkable cities.
In other words, it's a start.
PS We don't have to worry about oil-producing countries not having a market for their product. There will always be plenty of buyers for oil. As David says... it's fungible.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:54 pm
12 Jun 2006
If sustainability is NOT on the table, then our energy should be towards DEMANDING it BE on the table.
Working for energy independence is not an ecological issue.
It frankly smacks of the "roll up the borders and close the doors" isolationist mentality of the 1930's.
Which in hindsight was not a good policy.
Given how much of America's economy depends on imports and exports, the idea of any kind of "independence" is misleading.
It won't happen.
Building a sustainable global economy is the only solution to our environmental problems. False ideas like energy independence help keep us from addressing the real problem, and should be discarded.
patrick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:04 pm
12 Jun 2006
Oil, and the wealth and power that comes with it is the cause of oil wars and the resulting terrorism. The modern history of corporate empire in oil exporting regions, like the middle east, makes this very clear.
The "mustache" is always wrong. At least he's consistent though.
If some majical way of using oil that did not cause gobal climate disaster were found, oil would still cause oil wars.
There is one way to use oil and not have oil wars. Instead of paying oil corporations who pay dictators for the oil, we could pay the people of the country the oil is located under directly.
Send each Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian, and so forth... a check every month. then make the corporations that handle the oil for us accept a reasonable fee for their services.
The people of the oil exporting nations own the oil, we the people of oil importing nations buy it from them directly. Cut out the middle men.
But of course that would be impossible and oil based energy DOES destroy spaceship earth. So let's just stop using oil, please?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:31 pm
12 Jun 2006
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Wind/Wind_Installation.qt
(short wind generator installation time lapse video)
In practically no time at all (measured on the scale of the history of humans on spaceship earth), fossil and nuclear nightmares will evaporate into the past.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:33 pm
12 Jun 2006
It's a mental trap to think that Friedman etc. invented energy security. Get over that, and it becomes a simple question:
Which is better, "energy security" headlines or no headlines at all?
I'll take the headlines, and then hope that we can guide them to sensible solutions.
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:34 pm
12 Jun 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:18 am
13 Jun 2006
Global economy is pretty much inherently unsustainable if considering non-renewable energy consumption.
Global sustainability would imply a continuous supply of energy, which would have to be standardized, i.e. something like an internal combustion engine that burns oil. Unless we can find a similar energy source to power the oceanic vessels, global economy will collapse sooner or later. This has happened to any imperialist/global culture of its day: Rome, Mongols, and the Brits. There is too much land to cover and too much supplies (read: food) to be delivered without having to resort to taxation and ruination of the local producers.
I don't understand for example, how it can be beneficial to deliver garlic from China to New York State, when we can grow it RIGHT here.
Energy independence is a topic of a different scope: it's not isolationism, it's prudent thinking. Why would we want to outsource something that is absolutely necessary to our survival as a civilization? It's like trying to find oil on Mars, when we have it on Earth.
As far as ruining Nigeria and Bolivia, I have not heard much about how rich the citizens of those countries are... Maybe because they are shit poor unlike the people that keep all the money: few higher echelon government officials and execs from the developed countries, and don't forget the stockholders from... wait for it... the first-world.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 2:53 am
13 Jun 2006
The real issue is republican or democrat and the choice we make for President. Why not Gore. I think he should re-think his decision to not consider the presidency.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:40 am
14 Jun 2006
Dear Atreyger,
We exist in an age of a global economy. It is not going to go away. To say it is unsustainable, you must say in what term it is so (in terms of years). In the near term, it is our future.
There are two different "crises" people are confusing. One is Global Warming. The other is so-called "Peak oil".
I don't usually get involved in Peak Oil discussions. But, let me say, that historically, the "we have no more resources" folks have been proven wrong again and again. There are many places where oil exploration has barely begun, there are places where previously it was too expensive (and now it is not), and places where the technology would not take us before (and takes us now). Oil and it's derivatives will be around for at least another fifty years. Worrying beyond that time is pointless, since we cannot imagine what technologies will exist by then.
Global Warming is another matter. It is happening now, and decisions made now will impact the near and far future, regardless of the future technological developments.
"This has happened to any imperialist/global culture of its day: Rome, Mongols, and the Brits. There is too much land to cover and too much supplies (read: food) to be delivered without having to resort to taxation and ruination of the local producers." The past is not the present or the future. We live in a different age. There is also a difference between an empire enforced by arms and occupation, and a series of linked global locally run nations. This statement is confusing apples and oranges.
Why is it beneficial to deliver garlic from Benin to New York? Because it provides a source of capital for the people of Benin which allows them to raise their standard of living and end poverty. If this is not a concern, then it is not beneficial.
Americans can talk about local all they want, but I notice they do so on computers manufactured "distantly". It is a bit hypocritcal to say that America wants to keep "clean" agriculture local, but doesn't care about "dirty" manufacturing.
One of the problems with the "local" agriculture idea, is that the POOREST nations have nothing else to sell except surplus food, they see no other way out of poverty. So, all of the protectionist agricultural measures in the developed world, keep them locked into poverty.
The local argument is fine, but then use only energy produced locally, and computers, and clothing and cars and television, etc.
Since this will never happen, one is left with an arguement that in serving to do a "good" thing (protect American farmers), also has a "bad" consequence (leaves the poorest nations in poverty).
I don't understand the Nigeria and Bolivia comments, I never said anything about that.
Energy independence is not related to sustainability and is not an environmental issue. It should not be presented as one. It does nothing towards slowing down global warming.
patrick
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:50 pm
14 Jun 2006
Al Gore says that we are at or near Peak Oil.
Climate change a bigger security threat than terrorism, says report - an excellent report (available online) that connects security with climate chance, poverty, competition over resources (e.g. energy). From the Oxford Research Group.
Patrick, you are very articulate, but I take issue with a few points.
Americans can talk about local all they want, but I notice they do so on computers manufactured "distantly" Outsourcing manufacturing and losing jobs is not something most Americans favor. It was a business decision by large corporations. We would prefer to have the jobs. (I was in the computer industry when the outsourcing happened - we did not get a chance to vote on it!)
let me say, that historically, the "we have no more resources" folks have been proven wrong again and again. This was true only during the last 200 years, during which time fossil fuels came to the rescue when we were on the verge of running out of a resource (timber, whale oil, fertilizers). Previous civilizations did run out of resources with disasterous results (e.g. salting up farmland in the Middle East, cutting down the forests around the Mediterranean).
Oil and it's derivatives will be around for at least another fifty years. True, but how much will it cost? The demand will be much greater than supply, and the price will go up and up. Peak oil doesn't mean the end of oil; it means the end of cheap oil.
Energy independence is not related to sustainability and is not an environmental issue.I think they are intimately related:People pushing energy independence are talking about some of the same things that sustainability people are: renewables, energy efficiency, and conservation. They are also talking about technologies which are counter-productive: dirty coal, loosening environmental safeguards, unthinking application of ethanol. As energy becomes more expensive and countries grow more dependent on imports, tension and conflicts multiply. What are the hotspots today? Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Sudan. What do they have in common? Oil.
War will be our future if we don't come to terms with energy use. War will dominate politics. War will eat up precious resources. What chance will we have to talk about global warming and sustainability in a world of resource wars?
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:50 am
15 Jun 2006
You really did a good job with your argument. That's pretty much my point.
As far as agricultural production, the countries that are in deep poverty could easily be self-sustaining with their food production, and have quite a diverse variety of fruit and foods to sell to the rest of the world possibly at much higher prices than garlic.
However, the largest exports in the world today are: soy, corn, rice, bananas, coffee, and cocoa. There may be some distant others (I'm really only thinking developing countries to developed countries), but in reality this is just a poor choice, driven by large agricultural production, which is in turn driven by short-sighted large global banking operations.
This is in turn further miring the poor nations in a cycle of debt and ramped up production of foods that are not easy to grow in a monocultural setting (when factoring in worker health and possible eradication of the majority of crop due to a blight), while never allowing them to pay the debt back. We only need to consider the huge diversity of fruits and vegetables that we could have from these countries that cannot be had elsewhere, and most likely at higher prices than the mass-produced crap that we get (see Folger's coffee).
As far as garlic, well, if I am going to pay the same price at the farmer's market for a braid of garlic as I would for a similar amount of Chinese grown garlic, I will choose locally grown. The reason being is the artificially lowered prices that do not include externalities of fossil fuel use and climate change. Also I can actually talk to the farmer who grew it and have a social experience, and keep the money in a sector that is struggling in the US: small-ish farmers. Also doesn't China already provide us with nearly everything else that we have?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:44 pm
21 Jun 2006
Dear Bart,
I was outsourced too (okay, it was self-outsourcing). A point about the computer industry, many of the jobs that were lost in IT were lost due to the huge wave of corporate mergers that destroyed the many smaller shops in favor of huge shops. The jobs were not all "outsourced", by any means.
Here is a link to a contrarian energy economist
http://www.energyseer.com/Presentations.html#OIL
But really, peak oil becomes more of a "religious" issue than a true scientific one. We believe what we want to believe.
As to the notion that "resource wars" are our only alternative, I disagree. The kinds of weapons we have today make this unlikely. Mostly, I suspect, we will see changes in efficiency and lifestyle being mandated by reluctant governments.
(We are hotter in the summer and colder in the winter here to help save energy.)
The world outside the US is working on cooperative projects to solve these problems.
You include Venezuela and Nigeria as "hotspots", are they really? What about Canada, it has oil. Or Mexico (has some)?
When you buy your local garlic, be sure and ask the farmer how many workers he/she has, and what they get paid. (smile).
patrick
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:56 pm
21 Jun 2006
patrick: peak oil becomes more of a "religious" issue than a true scientific one. We believe what we want to believe.
Actually I think peak oil is a much simpler scientific problem than global warming. And there's widespread agreement that it will occur; the only question is when. Answers range from now to about 30 years in the future. For a green-friendly explanation of peak oil and its consequences, see the works of Richard Heinberg ("The Party's Over" and "Powerdown". Also, online writings and MuseLetter).
As to the notion that "resource wars" are our only alternative, I disagree. I'm not saying that resource wars are inevitable - only if we don't get the problem of energy under control. How much more desireable, as you say, to see changes in efficiency and lifestyle being mandated by reluctant governments. It won't happen automatically, though.
Sadly, possession of oil and gas is a good predictor of conflict. Condoleeza Rice has made this observation, as has leftist writer Michael Klare (writings and recent interview in Mother Jones).
bart
Permalink