Energy Revolution: (continued...)

Bazilian began his commentary by discussing the inherent complexity of the climate change issue.  “It’s rather difficult to get a grasp on what we’re talking about when we’re talking about issues of climate change, because, as Professor Hoffert said, they range from ocean temperatures to carbon fluxes, from salinity to how we use energy to light our homes.  And that makes it rather difficult from a policy perspective to consider how optimally to spend public money in the area.”  He concluded by discussing some of Europe’s policies.                                     

        The final speaker was Dr. James White, a Professor of Geological Studies at the University of Colorado.  He is also a fellow of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) and the director of the University of Colorado Environmental Studies Program.  “I think you need to hear the truth,” he said.  “And I think the truth is pretty darn shocking.  I think it’s pretty grim… Think of the alcoholic.  The alcoholic doesn’t deal with the problem until he hits bottom and recognizes that he has a problem.  We haven’t hit the bottom.  We haven’t figured out that we have a problem yet…  When we figure out that we really do have a problem we will have that Manhattan-like approach to this problem.  We will deal with it with all the enthusiasm and the intelligence and the resources that we can bring to bear.  But first we have to recognize that we have a problem.”  Dr. White went on to elucidate the extent of our problem, citing scientific details.

Senator Lugar: (continued...)

        Our dependence on the military to protect oil flows from the Persian Gulf at great expense is analogous to the patient who retains an expensive physician to perform risky and invasive treatments, but refuses to undertake a regimen of diet and exercise that would mitigate the detriments to his health.

        A national policy that moved us away from oil dependence would be a powerful statement that U.S. interests were unrelated to any conspiracy theories asserting American intent to dominate oil resources in the Middle East.  It would improve our ability to function as an honest broker in regional disputes.  It would allow us to assign more policy weight to promoting democratic values and advancing core national security interests, such as non-proliferation.

        In the near future, we will face increasing risk that the world's supply of oil may not be abundant and accessible enough to support continued economic growth in both the industrialized West and in large, rapidly growing economies.  As we approach the point where the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict and threats of military action.  A successful effort to reduce U.S. consumption of oil and introduce alternatives into our transportation infrastructure would help reduce pressure on the global supply of oil.  It would also serve as a model for other nations of what could be achieved.

       There is no shortage of urgent energy and environmental projects that should be undertaken by our government and our nation.  But in my judgment, our experience in Iraq and our national security difficulties in the Middle East place a national program to reduce oil consumption at the very top of this list. 

        Many options exist for rapid progress in reducing our Persian Gulf oil interests, but I would emphasize two.  First, President Bush or his successor could establish the national goal of making competitively priced biofuels available to every motorist in America.  Such an accomplishment would require multiple elements, including ensuring that virtually every new car sold in America is a flexible fuel vehicle capable of running on an 85 percent ethanol fuel known as E-85; that at least a quarter of American filling stations have E-85 pumps; and that America move rapidly to biofuels produced from a variety of biomass sources in addition to today’s corn-based fuel.

        Second, the President could commit to a radical increase in the miles per gallon of America’s auto fleet.  The Federal government has numerous tools to make this happen, from direct federal support for research, to government fleet purchasing, to market regulations and incentives.

        Biofuels and gas mileage improvements will not make America completely independent of energy imports, but they can strengthen our leverage over oil-rich regimes hostile to the United States, give greater freedom to our policy options in the Middle East, and help protect our economy.

 

This article draws from a speech delivered to the 2020 Vision Education Fund National Summit on Energy Security held July 12, 2007 in Washington, D.C.

# # #

EESI would like to specially thank Senator Lugar

for his contribution to our newsletter.