(Hi, I'm Gar Lipow. I've worked extensively on renewable energy issues, and have written an (as-yet-unpublished) book on alternatives to carbon emissions, mentioned by John McGrath here. I'm going to be posting on efficiency and renewable technologies that can replace fossil fuels as well as on the economics and politics of phasing them out.)
"Energy independence" may be the buzzword in the renewable energy field. Even the invaluable Apollo Alliance emphasizes ending "dependence on foreign oil." The short-term political benefit is indisputable. The term polls in the Nineties, probably ahead of motherhood and apple pie.
But it is a loser in the long run. "Energy independence" reinforces a frame that works against renewables. The connotation: "it is all the fault of those outsiders, those others who addicted us to their seductive foreign oil."
Nobody hit the U.S. over the head and forced it to buy petroleum. To the extent we are seduced and lied to, it is mostly by U.S.-headquartered oil companies such as Exxon, and U.S. politicians.
It is quite true that we go often go to war over oil. (Even though Iraq is not directly a war over oil, no one seriously thinks we would have invaded if their primary export were kumquats.) But if oil were not an issue, does anyone believe that we would not find something else to fight about? The American war against Vietnam (following the French war against Vietnam, following the Japanese war against Vietnam) did not have much to do with oil. The Congo has been reduced to an abattoir over various minerals, include key components of modern cell phones. As long as our international system has more to do with banditry than law, the powerful will find resources they want to grab from poorer ones, and key locations they want to control for strategic reasons.
If you distract from that, if you contribute with the American tendency to scapegoat foreigners for our problems, you reinforce the militarism and xenophobia that help keep in power people who strongly oppose renewables in practice.
In addition, if you frame the problem as "independence," then coal (which is cheap and plentiful in the U.S.) becomes an obvious solution -- in spite of the fact that it is far worse for global warming than oil, and a major water polluter besides.
Global warming is a political problem more than a technical one. In any fight, whether as formal and rule-bound as chess, the chaos of a barroom brawl, or the deadly lawlessness of war, you have to think more than one move ahead to win. "Energy independence" as a frame is a good way to score a couple of points but lose the game.
Comments
View as Threaded
Biodiversivist Posted 9:58 am
27 Oct 2006
We are dependent on imports of all kinds, not just energy. If we make enemies of the Japanese, who will sell us our Priuses? The thought that I would have to buy an American made car frightens me.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
wacki Posted 10:29 am
27 Oct 2006
The goal isn't to be 100% independent. Trading will and should always happen. The goal is to get the heavyweight oil out of the diplomacy chair so we can actually influence iran et. al.
Nobody hit the U.S. over the head and forced it to buy petroleum.
ok, so what else do you suggest I run my car with? I'm really scratching my head on this one.
But it is a loser in the long run. "Energy independence" reinforces a frame that works against renewables.
What?
The connotation: "it is all the fault of those outsiders, those others who addicted us to their seductive foreign oil."
Ok, I'm sure we are going to argue semantics but as I said earlier trading will always and should always happen. So I consider this a strawman. The goal is to get the us 'independent' enough so we can actually put sanctions on countries like Iran when they build nukes. As of right now our hands are tied. Countries like Iran know this and use this to their every advantage. If that's not addiction then I don't know what is. Sure it may not be "their" fault we are addicted but they are certainly exploiting it. Ok you may not like that word 'independence' but unless you can come up with a more accurate 2 word buzz phrase it's going to have to do.
Yes you should highlight the lies spread by Exxon but so even imply energy 'independence' is impossible is wrong IMO. It is not only wrong, but it is entirely -EV in the battle against global warming.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:11 am
27 Oct 2006
>ok, so what else do you suggest I run my car with? I'm really scratching my head on this one.
Note that I referred to the U.S. ("we" rather than you or me individually). There were policies the U.S. could have followed. We (the U.S.) need not have frozen CAFE standards, or refused to plug the SUV loophole when it was exposed. We could have funded development of Hyper-cars which might get 75 miles to the gallon or electric cars which can the equivalent of 100-200 mpg. Similarly we could have funded ultra-light rail system or PRT transit system which are less expensive than buses, less energy intensive, much cheaper and morre convenient to use; that would have moved a fair amount of communter traffic voluntarily out of cars. (A lot of people try mass transit at one time or another, find out it takes them twice as long to get anywhere as in a car, and return to driving. The majority of bus riders take buses by neccesity and not choice. Offer a clean, convenient fast mass transit alternative and I suspect a lot of people would be glad for the chance to read a paper on the way to work.)
>The goal is to get the us 'independent' enough so we can actually put sanctions on countries like Iran when they build nukes. As of right now our hands are tied. Countries like Iran know this and use this to their every advantage.
Thanks; this is a perfect illustration of what I was saying. Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and are obeying it to the letter. Of course I'm certain that their motive for building a nuclear power plant is to have nuclear capability. For a nation without an intensive technical infrastructure, nuclear power is an expensive and uncertain means of providing electrity. Bomb capacity is the best reason for building a nuclear power plant. OK, so why want that capability? Is it just because the Iranians are crazy evil people who want to start a nuclear war? Consider these as possible motives
Iran was put on the "Axis of Evil" along with North Korea and Iraq. North Korea had nukes and did not get invaded. Saddam had no nukes, no other weapons of mass destruction, delivered a complete list of what weapons he did have, allowed untrammeled access to weapons inspectors. He was invaded. I take it you are from the "free market" end of the political spectrum. If so, you need to remember that it is not just economic actors who respond to incentives.
Iran is in the same neighborhood as Pakistan, who has nuclear weapons and who does not always get along with it. It is next to Iraq, occupied by the U.S. who has declared it any enemy. It is within bombing distance by Israel, a nuclear power and one possesed of tremedous conventional capability.
Iran has a legal right (even though its intentions are not good) under the non-proliferation treaty to build exactly what it is building. Meanwhile the U.S. has not only not objected to Pakistan becomeing nuclear power, but has help India, which is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty to increase nuclear capabilities.
In addition the whole idea behind the non-proliferation treaty is that no new nation would become a nuclear weapons power, in return for which the existing nuclear nations would phase out their nuclear weapons programs. Under Clinton, the U.S. reduced its nuclear arsenal a bit - not a great deal. Under Bush, we are reversing this - making plants to upgrade our entire arsenal, replacing all nuclear warheads and delivery systems with better ones. Why on earth would Iran want to make an agreement with a nation like us that does not honor its end of international bargains?
Right after 911 we had an opportunity. Iran wanted to improve relations with the U.S. It offered to put resources into helping to find Osama (not that it had much to offer in that directio), to open up free trade and friendly relations with the U.S., and yes to restrict its nuclear program . The U.S. spurned that offer, refused to even talk to Iran.
The U.S. does not need to end its addiction to foreign oil. It needs to end its addiction to fossil fuels (including both domestic and foreign oil). Even more, it needs to end its addiction to bullying.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 4:05 pm
27 Oct 2006
Nuclear is not the path, coal and oil are fatal, while wind and solar are great for hippies in the bush.
Yep, run your car, power cities, even export power to underdeveloped countries.
If you harness the Earth's spin and store the energy you can unlock the Holy Grail.
It is an easy task.....
but I will not go further, except to say, maybe your actions have already killed the future.
Good luck.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:09 pm
27 Oct 2006
The struggle for energy resources, and oil in particular, is at the root of a multitude of conflicts. It's at the bottom of the "War on Terror" and it's the reason US troops are garrisoned throughout Central Asia. It's why Venezuela's Chavez is demonized.
Professor Michael Klare writes extensively on the connection between oil and war.
There are good reason for nation-states to be obsessed with oil. It's what the military runs on:Of the total U.S. government liquid fuel use, about 97% of that is consumed by the Department of Defense, making that agency the world's single largest fuel-burning entity.
Hubbert's Defense DepartmentThe U.S. military is very concerned with energy supplies (see Pentagon and Peak Oil: A Military Literature Review, also Military concerns about energy). As a result, some military thinkers are enlightened about the need for renewables. ...the Air Force won a 2005 Green Power Leadership Award for its commitment to green power as the nation's largest purchaser of renewable energy for 2004" (source)
Renewables and efficiency are top among the proposals of groups concerned about energy security, such as the "Geo-greens" described by Thomas Friedman and the skillfull lobby, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. (IAGS).
It is true, as Gar writes, that the call for energy independence often involves proposals for increased drilling and coal use. Environmental enlightenment has not been much in evidence.
However, one does not have to agree 100% in order to form alliances. And nationalism is a strong strong motivator. Much stronger than environmentalism, I'm afraid.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:38 am
28 Oct 2006
The problem is that the patriotic types are willing to rob Peter to pay Paul for their national security blanket. But, the whole goal is to stop environmental degradation, not the use of fossil fuels. People keep losing sight of that fact.
Stopping the use of fossil fuels is supposed to be the path to stopping environmental degradation. So, when the patriotic crowd promotes corn ethanol or soy biodiesel, they also promote the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and everything else wrong with our present agricultural technology. We can form alliances on things like wind and solar, but not with renewables that also destroy the environment.
We may well be mostly energy independent someday because we will generate power locally, hopefully not from our vast coal deposits. Analogously, we don't import our electricity because it has to be generated locally due to technological and logistical constraints.
It is going to take a long time to get there, which is another way of saying that we can't be energy independent in a timely manner. Everyone ignores the fourth dimension.
And what happened to the concept of fungibility? No one country can hold us hostage. They can only increase the price of oil on the world market. As far as our military is concerned, if push came to shove, they would do what Germany did and make fuel from coal. The smart move militarily would be to put in place plants to make fuel from coal that could be fired up if needed to fuel the military in an emergency, providing the hawks with their much needed security blankets. Of course, we would have to devise a way to keep hawks from declaring a constant state of emergency.
The bottom line is that we have an idiot for a president and he has hosed everything up by going to war by accident--the ultimate transgression for any leader of a country, and an impeachable offense if ever there was one.
If we gain control of the house and senate, Bush may suddenly become uncharacteristically non-partisan (kiss a lot of butt).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
wacki Posted 6:37 pm
29 Oct 2006
You said:
Nobody hit the U.S. over the head and forced it to buy petroleum.
And I asked: so what do we run our cars off of? You went on to talk about mass transit. I'm a big proponent of mass transit but you have a VERY LONG way to go to prove mass transit will get us off of oil, let alone foreign oil.
Ontop of that somebody did hit us over the head and forced us to buy petroleum. In the 1920's GM, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum broke the law and did just that. Granted there is much more to it than just that but I think that begins to illustrate my point.
Thanks; this is a perfect illustration of what I was saying. Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and are obeying it to the letter.
Oh really. So according to you I "scapegoat foreigners for our problems" and and suffer "xenophobia"? You obviously haven't read my blog or website.
Let me ask you one question. Do you think Iran should be allowed to have a nuke?
Right after 911 we had an opportunity. Iran wanted to improve relations with the U.S. It offered to put resources into helping to find Osama (not that it had much to offer in that directio), to open up free trade and friendly relations with the U.S., and yes to restrict its nuclear program . The U.S. spurned that offer, refused to even talk to Iran.
Link me please. I'd like to read more about this.
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 7:20 pm
29 Oct 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:09 am
30 Oct 2006
Distributed generation and storage. That means home, local, regional, and nationally independent units of the grid assembled from the basic building block of homes and busniesses that contribute energy to the grid and help store it.
That means dollars given away to hostile nations in return for oil is a thing of the past. Those dollars will go to revive the US manufacturing base instead. Jobs making all these renewable energy systems.
And we don't blame others for our mess, we export our renewable technology, we compete and cooperate on a global scale. Instead of oil wars, good old fashioned (friendly and fair)capitalist competition.
But you are right a lot of coal projects, like the coal to fuel plant in Montana, use the "energy independence" bandwagon to get goping, then greenwash the CO2 problem. In the Montana project boopsters say they will pump it under ground. Problematic, expensive, and industry self (not) regulated of course. Who will look for gas seeping out?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink