I have an op-ed on TomPaine today (it's also on CommonDreams and EnergyBulletin) that I'm fairly invested in. It attempts to make an argument I've made in bits and pieces several times -- something I'm keen to communicate clearly, though I'm not sure this piece fully does the job.
The argument, in short, is that the current debate over our energy future is distorted by money. Big-industry supply-side options like nuclear, "clean coal," and ethanol get all the press, while more immediately effective demand-reduction policies wither from lack of attention. It is the responsibility of the citizenry to push for these options, since industry (and the congressfolk they own) will never do it.
I hope you'll give it a read and let me know what you think. (More below the fold.)
Consider a parallel: Right now, there's a fierce debate over Bush's NSA collecting information on domestic phone calls. The debate has been artificially narrowed: Are you for the program or against it? If you're against it, you can be labeled pro-terrorist or weak on defense or whatnot. But the debate shouldn't be so narrow. There are thousands of other things Bush could do that would demonstrably, immediately make us safer (port security comes to mind) that wouldn't shred the Constitution. Why not start with those? Then in a few years, stop, reassess, and decide whether you need more legally tenuous strategies.
So too with nukes. It's easy to cast anti-nuke enviros as crusty old hippies who fight progress. But there are tons of things we could do to use less energy; we could save as much energy as we'd get from nuke plants, without the waste, security risks, government subsidies, etc. Why aren't we talking about those? Why is the debate so constricted?
Why? In a word: money. The nuclear industry can in effect buy a prominent op-ed in the Washington Post and set the terms of the debate. Demand-reduction strategies have no concentrated, monied constituency.
(I didn't choose "The Alt Fuels Distraction," the headline of the piece, and I'm not entirely sure it works. But whatevs.)
Comments
View as Flat
apsmith Posted 8:59 am
25 May 2006
The problem is the universal technological displacement problem: the old dinosaurs are not interested in investing in unproven new ways of doing things when they think they can just keep on making money and providing what the market wants with small changes to the old ways. They need either some major shock from the markets, or very strong government regulation, to see the light; the Prius for instance is an example of the market shocks the new technology should bring in coming years, but that's going to be a slow road without government support.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:01 am
25 May 2006
Dear David,
That was very well done. (Although in my wildest dreams I would hope we make the changes in less than 50 years).
You made the case very nicely. You are correct that money blocks the simple, existing solutions from being considered.
The problem, as always, is how do we counter it?
I believe it comes down to how we organize our lives, we need to get out and build communities where we talk to each other. When we know and talk to our neighbors, they are more likely to converse with us on subjects than to just listen to televsion and radio garbage.
patrick
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:52 am
25 May 2006
Permalink
Clark Williams-Derry Posted 9:54 am
25 May 2006
This op ed should make a good start.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:25 am
25 May 2006
Permalink
truffula Posted 1:49 pm
25 May 2006
...with those workers who do absolutely essential stuff gradually returning to their duties and the rest of us remaining close to chez nous and enjoying a time-rich / hydrocarbon-poor lifestyle.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:32 pm
25 May 2006
In general, I did not come away with anything positive from all the energy-wonkish economy-wonkish environmentalist jargon and shorthand. Even in the precis above, I wish you had explained in simpler terms what you mean by the expressions "big-industry supply-side options" and "more immediately effective demand-reduction policies."
In particular, the image of the Martian is klutzy. The concept of the Martian observer works when the subject is something characteristically earth-bound, something which is credibly not found anywhere but on this planet, such as our politics or our sexual relations. But presumably a Martian who managed to come to Earth knows all sorts of things about energy sources and the utilization of them already before it set out on its voyage to reach us, and so does not need to go through the implied education in basics. And presumably a Martian would have no special sympathy for America, and would have no interest in recommending energy solutions for that country alone.
Well, that is what I took away. Sorry. You know I love you madly, David, and mean you no disrespect. I hope that as an artist -- and a writer is most truly a kind of artist, after all -- you can accept some tough criticism from a friend.
Permalink
Rob Posted 5:53 pm
25 May 2006
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 9:48 pm
25 May 2006
Otherwise, again, cut it and get it out there to a broader audience.
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:16 am
26 May 2006
I think all the points are there and the points you make are excellent. I'm not sure how convincing the points are to an audience that has not been reading the discussions here on Gristmill.
I agree with Tom that it could be shortened to appeal to a broader audience, yet, paradoxically, it reads like you have a TON to say and were constrained by a word limit.
As much as I hate to say it, there is a reason that W is our president, i.e. the "folksy soundbite." Not that I would suggest that you "dumb down" the topic, not at all (as this is a pet peeve of mine), but perhaps I can put it this way: it reads like Al Gore is writing it; it needs to read like Mark Twain is writing it.
Finally, with so many ideas and so much data thrown in, it seems that the final message is a bit lost. I know you didn't select the title, but something like "Energy Efficiency: The Best Alt Fuel Option" might better communicate your overall point.
Sorry to be so pissy - I do think it was well done and clearly thought out, simply needs a little polish. Hope this was helpful...
Kaela
Permalink
gerald spezio Posted 3:45 am
26 May 2006
I passionately hope that you will re-evaluate your positive position about Daniel Abassi's Yalie Collaborative and its pompous doubltalking propaganda machine for adaptation thorough values management. Ditto, for the almost identical pseudo-journalism in framing and reframing disguise by the Frameworks hucksters for hyping values and technofixes.
I apologize and retract my claim that your credibility is on the line.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:51 am
26 May 2006
The real difficulty though is not in the style. It's the fact that the article is going into an environment full of numbing, dumbing and anti-environmental messages.
In such an environment, persistence is of greater value than fine writing.
The neo-cons should have taught us the value of repeating the same message again and again. The message doesn't have to make sense. It just has to be asserted with an air of authority. (Propaganda 101).
Messages should be targeted to the different audiences. Some will be intellectual, others will appeal to the emotions.
Dave's article seems to be directed at a reasonable and environmentally aware audience, encouraging us to think more carefully about energy choices.
BTW, The Oil Drum just posted an excellent article (somewhat technical) on Will biofuels always be hopeless?
But, I think it's very important to ask: do biofuels suck for deep fundamental unchangeable reasons? Or for contingent reasons that might be amenable to change over time with technological innovation? And I'm starting to think the answer might not be so obvious.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:35 am
26 May 2006
You twice used the term "by some estimates." The article may have lost some credibility there because those estimates sound wrong, at least to this engineer.
By some estimates, the CO2 emitted in the full lifecycle of a nuclear plant... would be only a third less than that released by a coal-fired plant.
I don't have the time or inclination to research every claim made on the internet that sounds fishy to me and I especially do not want to spend my time defending the nuclear industry. Although I have seen that claim on a number of anti-nuke sites, the idea that a nuclear plant would release only a third less CO2 than a coal plant may be not be correct. If it isn't, you sure don't want to be spreading it around because doing so would affect your credibility on all issues. If you can verify that it is accurate, then get the numbers (not just a link to an anti-nuke site) and be ready to link to them anytime someone questions them. It would be so much better if you could say "The Union of Concerned Scientists have studied this issue in great detail and have overwhelming evidence demonstrating that bla, bla." But to just say, "by some estimates" puts a lot of people's BS detectors to beeping.
Scrap electricity-market regulations that virtually mandate centralized power production at large, inefficient plants (by some estimates, up to two-thirds of energy is wasted en route to end users); instead, encourage decentralized production from small-scale, site-appropriate sources
What are these regulations? Can they really be scrapped? An example would have helped me a lot. Why you want to scrap them is also a little fuzzy. You suggest that "by some estimates" big power plants are inefficient when compared to small scale, site appropriate sources. Again, from my perspective, I don't think large centralized power is typically less efficient (not to say they don't have efficiency issues like transmission line losses). Bigger scale power plants tend to be more efficient than small ones.
I suspect that what you are really looking for is a way to help small-scale operations like wind and solar compete with conventional means of making power. Again, passing on other's claims of inefficiency that may prove to be inaccurate to make your point may come back to haunt your credibility later. A 777 with two 50,000 HP turbofan engines flies fine. A 777 with a hundred 100 HP recip engines would barely be able to taxi.
I also understand that the article was long enough without trying to go into even more detail.
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
sunflower Posted 4:38 am
26 May 2006
The heart of this message was stated in very clear terms, "Public dialogue is influenced by big money, but it is also, at least for now, influenced by the public. And we, the public, should approach the energy problem with fresh, unbiased eyes."
People just want to know "What can we do?". Honest answers can not come from vested interests. The answers can only be trusted from independent sources, like David. We need more sources, like David, more articles, more news.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:47 am
26 May 2006
Permalink
mihan Posted 5:57 am
26 May 2006
it would also be helpful to adopt a layered approach to your main points, i.e. have a few cradle to cradle-style summaries ("waste=food") to elaborate. [i'm a scientist. we like bullets.]
how about something like:
allow economic costs to reflect ecological and societal costs
build infrastructure to offer lower-energy-use alternatives
enact legislation to encourage both of the above
the explanations can be summarized thus:
the top priority in business is the bottom line
politicians need money, businesses have money
absolutely send it to the freaking NYT! i also think it could be shorter, but then i always do.
Permalink
grygy Posted 11:59 am
31 May 2006
Even with distributed gen (which I love), you still have to build it, and pay for the silicon in the solar panels (now starting to run into supply problems) or the gen-sets or whatever - and polluting distributed gen generally pollutes more than centralized per unit of energy.
Not to say there ain't a lot of good in there, but please do clean up the specifics before some RW think tank staffer gets ahold of it.
Permalink