Much Talk, No Action on the Need for Energy Independence

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In his latest column in today’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman addresses once again our dependency on foreign oil and the “need to do everything possible to develop alternatives…” I couldn’t agree more. This country’s dependency on oil imports and the leading petroleum exporters in the Middle East and elsewhere has influenced important aspects of U.S.foreign policy for a long time and, more recently, the so-called war on terror as well. Senator McCain was right, when he recently admitted—albeit inadvertently, what others said before—that oil was at the root of the Iraq invasion. Our leaders’ refusal to work towards independence from oil and invest in alternative energy sources is closely related to their ties to “big oil” authoritarian governments and to oil corporations—not only since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney moved into the White House. The current debate on the pro and con of a summer moratorium on the federal gasoline tax avoids once again a public debate about the larger problem, namely, to make the development of renewable energy sources one of this country’s top priorities.

For years, Tom Friedman and some of his colleagues have written and spoken in favor of changing our energy policies. But even the most urgent appeals were not heeded by our leaders. During the current campaign, the news media could have played a crucial role in elevating energy independence and related environmental protection to one of the major policy topics and forced candidates to spell out their positions in great detail. Instead, air time, column inches, and blogosphere posts have been devoted to superficial coverage of this important topic and irrelevant campaign incidentals. So far, the golden opportunity to fully inform and educate the electorate and force the candidates’ hands on putting energy high onto their agendas was missed by the media. And few seem to care—in spite of the rising price for gasoline.

I am convinced that nothing will change unless we, the people, take the lead. Most of us and perhaps all of us can make small and by now well-known but not yet widely embraced changes in our daily lives to save energy. If millions of car-drivers would embrace a “drive less this summer” habit, this would impact our gasoline consumption measurably. If millions would at least some of the time use public transportation instead of their own cars, this would decrease gasoline consumption as well. 

But more is needed, namely, a from-below movement for energy independence through clean and renewable alternative energy sources. The Internet is an ideal vehicle to start such a movement that would depend on the interest and enthusiasm of the young generation. One of my students wrote a term paper this spring on the “One Million Voices” demonstrations against the FARC in Colombia that began with an initiative on the social network site Facebook.

Why not try to initiate and organize along the same lines to create a movement for clean and renewable energy to free us from our dependence from petro-exporters and at the same time protects our environment?

I am hoping that a reader of this blog thinks along the same lines and takes the lead on this.

Comments

[Tony]

Hi Brigitte. I could go on for hours on this subject, but basically, people just don't want to exercise any self-restraint. They have been conditioned to refer ALL problems and irritations to their gov't. More later, Tony

[Brigitte]

Yes. But we ought not to accept the status quo and rather try to mobilize people--young people in the first place--, to do what is right. We cannot wait for politicians to solve problems, nothing will change.
I am so impressed with the anti-FARC mass demonstrations I mentioned above. This mechanism needs to be explored for other good causes--and apart from election campaigns.

[Eric Chen]

Professor Nacos,

I believe, ultimately, the market will be the key driver of change. However, the price of oil will have to become much higher for that to happen, because in our current industrialized civilized world, the consumption of petroleum-based products and fuel have become intrinsic in our lives, expectations, and ideas of progress. (Eg, go to a modern hospital and check out what materials and how much energy is used.) Oil isn't a choice - it's a staple. Weaning ourselves from oil would be like weaning recently past civilizations from wood. Right now, the only energy sources that come close to matching oil are nuclear energy and possibly coal.

I support the liberal premises of the Bush Administration's strategy in the War on Terror. At the same time, I've always understood that our 20th-21st century intervention in the Middle East, with the exception of our support for Israel, has been largely based on the strategic and global economic importance of the region's oil supply. With civilization set up the way it is, oil is actually one of the more sensible reasons to deploy our military; stability and favorable relations in that part of the world matter to us a lot.

The difference is that before 9/11, we sought stability in the Middle East through realism. Realism failed us and on 9/11, President Bush converted to liberalism. Now, we're attempting to build a liberal peace rather than settle for the same realist compromises that contributed to so much harm.

I wonder, if we aggressively try to become independent of oil while our global competitors stay on oil, how will that affect our economy's standing in a competitive global market?

[Brigitte]

Eric:
I very much appreciate your comments and the above one in particular. As far as our dependence on foreign oil for our energy needs is concerned, I would hope that we would follow the Western and, even more so, the Northern European examples and work towards independent energy sources and, just as important, renewable ones.
You are right that market forces play into this but with oil prices increasing rapidly, there should be an incentive to find and finance alternative energy.
I, for one, cannot understand how new developments are going up that do not take advantage of solar energy or other types of alternative energy sources.
As much as I appreciate the workings of the free market-place, I also believe that there are collective societal interests that must be pushed even at the expense of financial market interests.

[Eric Chen]

Professor Nacos,

I support weaning our nation from oil. I agree with you that it seems self-evident that alternative energy is a critical issue to be solved, for multiple reasons.

However, we're not a socialist democracy, and we are big consumers with a big complex interconnected economy that's spread over a big country and globally interconnected with a big world. Our government is empowered by us to do a lot of things, but flirting with economic disaster isn't one of them. (Quite the opposite, actually, especially since the Great Depression.) It can fund research for alternative energy sources but how much can it do to incentivize real, and radical, change of the national standard for fuel when oil currently powers every part of our economy, indeed, our society?

I think you are onto the start point by focusing on localized energy needs that are less accountable to the national standard for fuel, eg, power for housing developments rather than transportation.

Competitive industry is cautious and conservative by necessity when it comes to fundamental infrastructure - it's a matter of survival. For them, oil is proven, they're fully invested in it, and it powers their competitors. The challenge is to prove to them that alternative energy is sufficiently cost-effective and reliable to warrant the cost and risk of changing over their technologies from oil to ... something else. Best bet on that front is for new, revolutionary start-up competitors in the various industries to not only succeed, but win over the market while using alternative energies. How much can the government do there without crossing the line from regulation to interference in the private sector?

[Brigitte]

Yes, and if we want to have start ups in the field of renewable energy grow, succeed, and stay in business, they need support. Germany is a good example. Although the country doesn't even come close to the sunny days most of the U.S. has, it is a leading producer of solar cells because of, yes, government subsidies and solar price regulations.
Wind energy and other sources, too, need financial incentives--especially at the start. Actually, in the U.S., too, there are some financial benefits--for example, right here on Long Island, where I live.
If we can pump more than $ billion a month into the Iraq war, we surely can promote clean, renewable energy.