- Campaign
Literature « 1992
Democratic Presidential Primary «
The Tsongas Committee - A Call
to Economic Arms « Chapter IV Energy, Fossil Fuels
1992 Democratic Presidential Primary
The Tsongas Committee
 |
|
| Chapter
IV |
|
A CALL TO ECONOMIC ARMS
Forging A New American Mandate
PAUL E. TSONGAS
lV. Energy, Fossil Fuels - Someday There Won't Be Any
There are two basic realities about energy facing Americans. First, we have no national energy policy (presuming that importing oil does not qualify as such a policy). Sadly, it took the war in the Persian Gulf to again make this obvious. The 1980's decade of energy issue avoidance has hopefully come to an end although the White House may be the last to acknowledge it. Second, our energy use is based almost exclusively upon the consumption of finite energy resources (particularly oil) and that is, by definition, unsustainable over the long term. This will event ally create ever-deepening crises of supply and cause desperate and powerful nations to seek to acquire remaining oil reserves by force. All of this was foreseen long ago by energy and military analysts. Again, witness the Persian Gulf where the world's dependence upon foreign oil reserves greatly raised the stakes in the current confrontation.
Put it another way. The earth has provided a finite amount of fossil fuels for its inhabitants. The number of inhabitants rises every year increasing total energy use. The per capita consumption of these fossil fuels also increases as more and more countries become industrialized and as more and more people enjoy energy-intensive lifestyles. This dilemma will not be solved by asking developing countries to forego comforts which we take for granted.
Every year the total energy use is subtracted from what the earth started out with. Since supply is always heading downward and use is always heading upward, sooner or later what the nations need will not be available. At first, prices that are confiscatory beyond measure will mean that the rich will have energy resources and the poor will not. But even that inequity will not be sustainable as each year drains more fossil fuels. Eventually even supply at any price will not be possible. Nations will continually go to war to survive. Today that is self-evident.
To make matters worse, most of the earth's readily obtainable oil reserves are in one of the most unstable areas of the world politically. Thus, the prospect of war exists into the future, long after Saddam Hussein has passed from the scene.
The discussion of this issue reveals the limited capacity of middle-aged decision makers to think in terms beyond their expected lifespans. When 55 old year oil experts talk in glowing terms about a 50 year supply of that resource, that means they are confident of supply during their expected natural lives. That is reassuring. It is, however, less reassuring to their 25 year old children who are not certain they will have died by the age of 75. It is obviously not at all reassuring to their five year old grandchildren.
Let's up the estimate to 100 years. Nothing changes in respect to our moral obligation not to visit certain calamity upon future generations. This is where the issue of purpose comes into play. This is where the New American Mandate comes into play.
If we are dealing with a finite resource; if we are depleting that resource; and if we are not aggressively pursuing policies to bring about energy use based on renewables; then we are condemning a future generation to the unspeakable. Which generation? Who knows? The next one or the one after that or the one after that? The moral burden does not lift; our purpose must be to assure the survival of those future generations.
We need a national energy policy.
Such a policy must view current use patterns as unacceptable, particularly the return to overreliance upon imported oil.
It must view the long term goal as minimizing finite resource use, again, especially oil. The future must be based upon energy resources that are sustainable.
One mission is to get from here to there in as smooth a transition as possible. That will take decades, intense investment, rethinking, and lifestyle modification. The alternative is to request that God replace all the oil and gas that we've consumed. That would certainly be a lot easier but in case He chooses to let us resolve this matter by ourselves, an energy policy will be required.
Yearly Supply-Demand Report
The reasons the country doesn't have an energy policy are complex. But one reason stems from the fact that the general public has little idea how much oil, gas and coal reserves we have in this country. There are experts who know - or think they know - but the average person is just never brought into the discussion.
There should be an annual Supply-Demand Report detailing the best estimates of oil, gas and coal reserves. Such data collection is already being done. But it is buried. This report should be the subject of focused presidential attention and annual Congressional hearings.
The purpose here is simple. If there are actions required to be taken in order to secure our energy future, they will only be accepted if the people of this nation know the true facts. During the 1980's we reverted back to extreme foreign oil dependence but it was done silently. Few people in the Congress or on Main Street were aware that oil imports in 1990 averaged 42%, their highest level since 1979 and up from 35% in 1973. Oil from the Persian Gulf accounted for 24% of all U.S. oil imports in 1989, up from 17% in 1987. The Reagan-Bush administrations saw no need to make reference to or bring these facts forcefully to the attention of the public. Avoidance politics prevailed once more.
Then, all of a sudden, we are at war in the Persian Gulf and oil is a critical cause of our involvement. The yearly debate over the Supply-Demand Report would educate both government officials and the general public if it were given due notice when it is released.
Maximize Conservation
This one is self-evident. Every barrel of oil not consumed is a barrel of oil preserved for future generations. Every MCF of gas not burned, every ton of coal -all are stored in loving deference to our descendents. This is the New American Mandate extended to those future Americans whose viability is in our hands. Conservation has become more mainstream, largely free from the early notions that it was somewhat "soft." In those days real tough men produced energy. Conservation was the domain of the timid little old tree hugger ladies and unwashed hippies. Today it is the domain of corporate CEO's who see the savings to their bottom lines.
Mainstream, however, is not enough. It must become the number one energy priority. This means a return to the debates of yesteryear - efficiency standards, tax credits. It also means higher rates of return for utilities that maximize their commitment to conservation and load management and a lesser rate of return for utilities that don't. Such a rate differential should be significant enough to thoroughly incentivize utility CEO's. These companies are our most effective energy army and they are already deployed. Using them is far preferable to devising new untested approaches using public employees.
And it can be done. When I became a director of Boston Edison in1985 I was a committed conservationist coming into a company that was known to be hostile to any of the so-called demand side management options.
The outside environmental community - and the state Department of Public Utilities - had harshly criticized Boston Edison for its attitude. I shared much of their perspective and struggled inside the board to bring about change. This effort led to much company turmoil and in the end to serious management changes.
Boston Edison is now a recognized leader in demand side management. But the lesson here is not the obvious one. Yes, there was inertia. Yes, there was resentment against policies advocated by people who were always critical anyway. But I believe the major resistance was pure market place. The regulators and environmentalists were calling upon Edison to pursue policies that were at variance with the cherished principles of market share retention and resultant shareholder value. They were being asked to use their resources to shrink their revenue base. It was totally counter intuitive for people who had spent their careers concerned about profitability.
This fierce resistance can instantly become fierce support if regulators just change the rules. To truly maximize conservation we must make it in the economic self-interest of utilities to become devoted conservationists.
Conservation also means higher gasoline prices. As usual, George Bush blanches when asked to do this by his energy policy advisers. His recently announced energy policy is warmed over Reagan with production taking center stage and conservation belittled. It is a sad lesson of American politics that a President would send troops to defend oil rich nations but not be willing to take the tough political steps necessary to reduce domestic oil demand. I understand the politics. It's just the ethics that I can't fathom. Washington should have a predictable policy of raising the Federal excise tax on gasoline. It should be raised a certain amount each year, every year, so that consumers can make sensible decisions about the cars they will drive before the annual increases go into effect. Three to five cents a year each year would be one possibility. Nothing, but nothing, promotes the purchase of fuel efficient cars like anticipated higher gas prices. That is an unavoidable fact of life. It has been years since automobile ads spoke of fuel efficiency. All of today's ads speak of acceleration and power and mightiness. While this measure will not be well-received, a three to five cents a year annual increase would not begin to reach today's tax levels in virtually all other Western nations. Japan, Germany and Italy, for example, have gas prices exceeding $3 a gallon. They have faced the issue. We have only just begun. The loss of American lives in the Persian Gulf is an unacceptable price to pay for the once-understandable desire to keep gas prices low. Our need to lessen oil import dependence should no longer be a national objective supported by lofty rhetoric but devoid of the meaningful actions needed to accomplish that objective.
It also means higher federal taxes on fuel inefficient automobiles that are then rebated, dollar for dollar, to purchasers of fuel efficient automobiles. The consumer buying a car consistent with our national energy policy should be subsidized by the consumer buying a car at variance with that policy.
Finally, it means greater investments in mass transit and the rail system. These would be funded by the gas tax. Again, those who use energy efficient means should be rewarded for such use. It is astonishing to think that we are still debating how much should be allocated to mass transit as opposed to new highways. This debate can only happen in an atmosphere wherein no national energy policy exists.
These measures must be matched by all-out efforts to achieve conservation internationally. The electricity and transportation systems are particularly inefficient in many third world countries. The United Nations must put this effort at the top of their energy funding agenda. We must cause this to happen.
Maximize Renewables
This is the future. Solar, wind, hydro, etc. We were on the road to making these technologies viable when the Reagan administration blew away the funding for them. There is an enormous amount of research and development necessary before some of these technologies become truly affordable and operational. But in terms of long-term national security interest, the Gulf crisis should make it clear that energy dependence is no bargain. Better to spend billions to make those technologies viable than to spend many more billions funding the consequences of energy dependence.
Here again the utilities are prime-time players. Utilities that aggressively promote these technologies should enjoy a higher rate of return than those that don't.
Finally, it should be noted that every dollar spent on renewables (and conservation) remains in the economy and multiplies. To the extent that American-based solutions exist, they should be preferred over imported solutions in pursuit of the simple goal of keeping U.S. dollars at home. Thus, a dollar paid to an installer of insulation or invested in a wind energy project stays here and circulates. The benefit of that over sending a dollar overseas to purchase oil is not insignificant.
Research into Nuclear Options
This one is not self-evident. But it is necessary nonetheless. Let's say we maximize conservation and renewables tomorrow. Let's also agree that by doing so we have stretched out the fossil fuel reserves by twenty, fifty, even one hundred years. There's still a very real problem. We will never arrive at a time of energy use based solely on renewables.
There must be a major base load energy capability that is sustainable. Inevitably that capability has to be nuclear. The fact that this is an unhappy reality does not make it any less of a reality. The other base-load alternative is massive reliance on coal and that is not possible in an era of real concern over global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
Every nuclear power plant operating in the world today represents millions of barrels of oil not consumed. Indeed, one can, ironically, argue that we have served our descendants by the use of nuclear power since they will inherit the oil we did not use. Each plant also represents tens of millions of dollars not sent to OPEC but kept in the American economy. This call for nuclear power, of course, goes against every instinct of most environmentalists. It also offends those concerned with the issue of nuclear safety and the attendant issue of the disposal of nuclear waste. These concerns are very real and will never disappear.
When I was struggling with the issue of nuclear power as a Congressman and Senator in the 1970's, there was furious debate among my staff members and outside advisors. The split saw my strong environmental supporters aligned with my political advisors. The argument was clear. Environmentalists were fiercely anti-nuclear. They were my most dedicated loyalists. And they had valid concerns that were always being casually dismissed by utilities and governments alike. Being antinuclear would be substantively correct and politically beneficial.
On the other side was my energy staff person. He was not unsympathetic to the logic arrayed against him. He thought the nuclear industry and the utilities had been mindless, stubborn and reactionary. He thought that they had become their own worst enemy for good reason.
But, he asked, if you eliminate nuclear what do you put in its stead? What exactly is the replacement process for shutting down the nuclear option? Tell me specifically what substitutes for what.
At first we provided the expected response about conservation and renewables. But when you tried to put numbers on them, there was a huge gap no matter how aggressively we pushed these options.
That left oil, gas and coal. All were finite and oil and coal had particular problems if you overloaded the system with them. While gas would be a clean energy source it would not substitute for everything else.
In the end, there were no open doors left.
Accepting this was excruciating. Politically it was all downside. It remains the most difficult and uncomfortable policy position I have ever taken. But today, more than a decade later, I still feel the same way.
That doesn't eliminate the real problems with nuclear energy. But they have to be viewed in context.
It is much easier to have those concerns dominate our policy since they are immediate, and the dire consequences that are the focus of this paper may be decades away. My responsibility is to today, of course, but it is even stronger to those who have not lived the half century I have enjoyed. A policy that disregards the viability of our descendants is a policy of no moral value. This looking beyond ourselves is part of the return to purpose.
Further, it should be noted that the greenhouse effect is a compelling argument by itself for nuclear power. If the buildup of carbon dioxide is indeed a threat to the world's climate, then an energy source which produces no carbon dioxide should have some currency. This is an extremely difficult divide for environmentalists to cross. But the debate has begun.
It's a matter of evaluating risks. The risk of a nuclear accident is quite knowable. The risk of rising oceans has never been experienced and thus elicits no strong fears. But one can begin to imagine the dimensions of such a calamity. For me I choose to take the greenhouse effect very seriously. I hope I'm wrong.
Finally, it is interesting to see how differently governments have treated this issue of nuclear power. France is a country ruled by the liberal Socialist Party yet is driving toward virtually full dependence upon nuclear power. They see it as freedom from oil dependence and an end to the financial hemorrhaging of that dependence.
Japan and South Korea are strong adherents of nuclear as their electricity producer.
Germany is ruled by the conservative Christan Democrats yet has closed off the nuclear option. Others have as well.
In the long run which countries will benefit? In my mind, the French have done the most to secure their energy future. They have decided upon a course which if followed by other nations will render the Persian Gulf less critical and thereby less likely to result in the kind of dilemma we now face there. It will result in less oil demand, thereby sooner or later there will not be an American company able to build a nuclear power plant. All of the know-how will be Japanese or French or whatever. And when the world recognizes the need for non-fossil fuel base-load generation and turns to nuclear we will again have lost our competitive position. The trade implications of this are obvious. But it also means loss of U.S. influence on issues such as safety design and waste disposal. The role of the federal government is critical here because only it can take the steps necessary to coordinate the emergence of the new nuclear power option. The President and Congress must jointly agree as to the necessity for this option and then provide the leadership to work with industry to make it happen. This will involve issues such as funding, regulation and site selection.
Fossil Fuels
People who don't like to contemplate the nuclear option will want to take refuge in the notion that we can always go back to finding more fossil fuels.
People who dismiss conservation and renewables will do the same.
Let's go out and extract more oil and gas. This is, in essence, the current policy.
The scarcity of oil reserves contrasts with the more plentiful reserves of gas in North America so the two are not to be seen as identical. But the prime weakness here is the obvious - the more we find and extract, the less there will be. We obviously do need a vibrant oil and gas drilling and production capability. For the next few decades this capacity is absolutely essential.
But beyond the available U.S. oil reserves, particularly in the Southwestern states, the options are less attractive.
Take the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. There are two possible approaches. First, go in, exploit it and secure the several months at most supply said to possibly exist there. Whatever environmental damage occurs, that is just the price that has to be paid.
Second, keep the oil in the ground, preserve the environment and treat that oil (if it exists) as available to future generations whose need will be much more acute than ours. Obviously, the first approach offers greater current political advantage. The second, however, offers greater fulfillment to the generational responsibility. Guess which one George Bush chose?
But the second also offers strategic value as well. As we face future crisis after future crisis occasioned by our dependence upon foreign oil, are we not better positioned if we have put into place alternatives and conservation and have the maximum amount of fossil fuels still in the ground? Put another way, does not a Drain America First approach maximize our vulnerability?
But beyond these arguments, the Bush proposal to open up the Artie Wildlife Refuge bespeaks of how much our oil addiction has diminished all our other values. Alaska is not just another place. It is the most beautiful and most preserved land on earth. It is, by far, the grandest gesture we have made in deference to God's wondrous creation. To seek to put the wildlife refuge at risk while balking at a gasoline tax to achieve the same net result is hypocrisy in the extreme for someone who talked about wanting to be the environmental president. The Democrats in 1992 should commit to veto any effort to despoil this part of Alaska as a substitute for an inevitable energy policy. In many respects, this issue is a "defining moment" for our values as keepers of the land, protectors of nature's wildlife and guardians of the energy needs of our descendents.
But even in the lower forty-eight states, the concern is where the fossil fuels will come from. Once the relatively easy oil and gas reserves are tapped you begin to get into some pretty dicey alternatives. Drilling a hole to extract oil is one thing. Crushing a mountain to extract oil shale is quite another. Drilling a hole to extract gas is one thing. Mining arid regions of the country for coal is quite another.
This is not to argue against fossil fuel development. That will happen and should happen in the decades of transition. Indeed, the nation is looking to natural gas to step in and substitute for oil in ways unexpected just a few years ago.
This, combined with the development of ethanol, methanol and other alternative fuels, offers real time hope of lessening our Persian Gulf addiction. However, the fact remains that the conservation/renewables/nuclear options should be put at the head of the energy line. Only by doing that can we contemplate the wonders of grandchildren and great grandchildren without the burden of knowing we have sacrificed them for our own comfort and convenience.
Index
Forging A New American Mandate
PAUL E. TSONGAS
lV. Energy, Fossil Fuels - Someday There Won't Be Any
There are two basic realities about energy facing Americans. First, we have no national energy policy (presuming that importing oil does not qualify as such a policy). Sadly, it took the war in the Persian Gulf to again make this obvious. The 1980's decade of energy issue avoidance has hopefully come to an end although the White House may be the last to acknowledge it. Second, our energy use is based almost exclusively upon the consumption of finite energy resources (particularly oil) and that is, by definition, unsustainable over the long term. This will event ally create ever-deepening crises of supply and cause desperate and powerful nations to seek to acquire remaining oil reserves by force. All of this was foreseen long ago by energy and military analysts. Again, witness the Persian Gulf where the world's dependence upon foreign oil reserves greatly raised the stakes in the current confrontation.
Put it another way. The earth has provided a finite amount of fossil fuels for its inhabitants. The number of inhabitants rises every year increasing total energy use. The per capita consumption of these fossil fuels also increases as more and more countries become industrialized and as more and more people enjoy energy-intensive lifestyles. This dilemma will not be solved by asking developing countries to forego comforts which we take for granted.
Every year the total energy use is subtracted from what the earth started out with. Since supply is always heading downward and use is always heading upward, sooner or later what the nations need will not be available. At first, prices that are confiscatory beyond measure will mean that the rich will have energy resources and the poor will not. But even that inequity will not be sustainable as each year drains more fossil fuels. Eventually even supply at any price will not be possible. Nations will continually go to war to survive. Today that is self-evident.
To make matters worse, most of the earth's readily obtainable oil reserves are in one of the most unstable areas of the world politically. Thus, the prospect of war exists into the future, long after Saddam Hussein has passed from the scene.
The discussion of this issue reveals the limited capacity of middle-aged decision makers to think in terms beyond their expected lifespans. When 55 old year oil experts talk in glowing terms about a 50 year supply of that resource, that means they are confident of supply during their expected natural lives. That is reassuring. It is, however, less reassuring to their 25 year old children who are not certain they will have died by the age of 75. It is obviously not at all reassuring to their five year old grandchildren.
Let's up the estimate to 100 years. Nothing changes in respect to our moral obligation not to visit certain calamity upon future generations. This is where the issue of purpose comes into play. This is where the New American Mandate comes into play.
If we are dealing with a finite resource; if we are depleting that resource; and if we are not aggressively pursuing policies to bring about energy use based on renewables; then we are condemning a future generation to the unspeakable. Which generation? Who knows? The next one or the one after that or the one after that? The moral burden does not lift; our purpose must be to assure the survival of those future generations.
We need a national energy policy.
Such a policy must view current use patterns as unacceptable, particularly the return to overreliance upon imported oil.
It must view the long term goal as minimizing finite resource use, again, especially oil. The future must be based upon energy resources that are sustainable.
One mission is to get from here to there in as smooth a transition as possible. That will take decades, intense investment, rethinking, and lifestyle modification. The alternative is to request that God replace all the oil and gas that we've consumed. That would certainly be a lot easier but in case He chooses to let us resolve this matter by ourselves, an energy policy will be required.
Yearly Supply-Demand Report
The reasons the country doesn't have an energy policy are complex. But one reason stems from the fact that the general public has little idea how much oil, gas and coal reserves we have in this country. There are experts who know - or think they know - but the average person is just never brought into the discussion.
There should be an annual Supply-Demand Report detailing the best estimates of oil, gas and coal reserves. Such data collection is already being done. But it is buried. This report should be the subject of focused presidential attention and annual Congressional hearings.
The purpose here is simple. If there are actions required to be taken in order to secure our energy future, they will only be accepted if the people of this nation know the true facts. During the 1980's we reverted back to extreme foreign oil dependence but it was done silently. Few people in the Congress or on Main Street were aware that oil imports in 1990 averaged 42%, their highest level since 1979 and up from 35% in 1973. Oil from the Persian Gulf accounted for 24% of all U.S. oil imports in 1989, up from 17% in 1987. The Reagan-Bush administrations saw no need to make reference to or bring these facts forcefully to the attention of the public. Avoidance politics prevailed once more.
Then, all of a sudden, we are at war in the Persian Gulf and oil is a critical cause of our involvement. The yearly debate over the Supply-Demand Report would educate both government officials and the general public if it were given due notice when it is released.
Maximize Conservation
This one is self-evident. Every barrel of oil not consumed is a barrel of oil preserved for future generations. Every MCF of gas not burned, every ton of coal -all are stored in loving deference to our descendents. This is the New American Mandate extended to those future Americans whose viability is in our hands. Conservation has become more mainstream, largely free from the early notions that it was somewhat "soft." In those days real tough men produced energy. Conservation was the domain of the timid little old tree hugger ladies and unwashed hippies. Today it is the domain of corporate CEO's who see the savings to their bottom lines.
Mainstream, however, is not enough. It must become the number one energy priority. This means a return to the debates of yesteryear - efficiency standards, tax credits. It also means higher rates of return for utilities that maximize their commitment to conservation and load management and a lesser rate of return for utilities that don't. Such a rate differential should be significant enough to thoroughly incentivize utility CEO's. These companies are our most effective energy army and they are already deployed. Using them is far preferable to devising new untested approaches using public employees.
And it can be done. When I became a director of Boston Edison in1985 I was a committed conservationist coming into a company that was known to be hostile to any of the so-called demand side management options.
The outside environmental community - and the state Department of Public Utilities - had harshly criticized Boston Edison for its attitude. I shared much of their perspective and struggled inside the board to bring about change. This effort led to much company turmoil and in the end to serious management changes.
Boston Edison is now a recognized leader in demand side management. But the lesson here is not the obvious one. Yes, there was inertia. Yes, there was resentment against policies advocated by people who were always critical anyway. But I believe the major resistance was pure market place. The regulators and environmentalists were calling upon Edison to pursue policies that were at variance with the cherished principles of market share retention and resultant shareholder value. They were being asked to use their resources to shrink their revenue base. It was totally counter intuitive for people who had spent their careers concerned about profitability.
This fierce resistance can instantly become fierce support if regulators just change the rules. To truly maximize conservation we must make it in the economic self-interest of utilities to become devoted conservationists.
Conservation also means higher gasoline prices. As usual, George Bush blanches when asked to do this by his energy policy advisers. His recently announced energy policy is warmed over Reagan with production taking center stage and conservation belittled. It is a sad lesson of American politics that a President would send troops to defend oil rich nations but not be willing to take the tough political steps necessary to reduce domestic oil demand. I understand the politics. It's just the ethics that I can't fathom. Washington should have a predictable policy of raising the Federal excise tax on gasoline. It should be raised a certain amount each year, every year, so that consumers can make sensible decisions about the cars they will drive before the annual increases go into effect. Three to five cents a year each year would be one possibility. Nothing, but nothing, promotes the purchase of fuel efficient cars like anticipated higher gas prices. That is an unavoidable fact of life. It has been years since automobile ads spoke of fuel efficiency. All of today's ads speak of acceleration and power and mightiness. While this measure will not be well-received, a three to five cents a year annual increase would not begin to reach today's tax levels in virtually all other Western nations. Japan, Germany and Italy, for example, have gas prices exceeding $3 a gallon. They have faced the issue. We have only just begun. The loss of American lives in the Persian Gulf is an unacceptable price to pay for the once-understandable desire to keep gas prices low. Our need to lessen oil import dependence should no longer be a national objective supported by lofty rhetoric but devoid of the meaningful actions needed to accomplish that objective.
It also means higher federal taxes on fuel inefficient automobiles that are then rebated, dollar for dollar, to purchasers of fuel efficient automobiles. The consumer buying a car consistent with our national energy policy should be subsidized by the consumer buying a car at variance with that policy.
Finally, it means greater investments in mass transit and the rail system. These would be funded by the gas tax. Again, those who use energy efficient means should be rewarded for such use. It is astonishing to think that we are still debating how much should be allocated to mass transit as opposed to new highways. This debate can only happen in an atmosphere wherein no national energy policy exists.
These measures must be matched by all-out efforts to achieve conservation internationally. The electricity and transportation systems are particularly inefficient in many third world countries. The United Nations must put this effort at the top of their energy funding agenda. We must cause this to happen.
Maximize Renewables
This is the future. Solar, wind, hydro, etc. We were on the road to making these technologies viable when the Reagan administration blew away the funding for them. There is an enormous amount of research and development necessary before some of these technologies become truly affordable and operational. But in terms of long-term national security interest, the Gulf crisis should make it clear that energy dependence is no bargain. Better to spend billions to make those technologies viable than to spend many more billions funding the consequences of energy dependence.
Here again the utilities are prime-time players. Utilities that aggressively promote these technologies should enjoy a higher rate of return than those that don't.
Finally, it should be noted that every dollar spent on renewables (and conservation) remains in the economy and multiplies. To the extent that American-based solutions exist, they should be preferred over imported solutions in pursuit of the simple goal of keeping U.S. dollars at home. Thus, a dollar paid to an installer of insulation or invested in a wind energy project stays here and circulates. The benefit of that over sending a dollar overseas to purchase oil is not insignificant.
Research into Nuclear Options
This one is not self-evident. But it is necessary nonetheless. Let's say we maximize conservation and renewables tomorrow. Let's also agree that by doing so we have stretched out the fossil fuel reserves by twenty, fifty, even one hundred years. There's still a very real problem. We will never arrive at a time of energy use based solely on renewables.
There must be a major base load energy capability that is sustainable. Inevitably that capability has to be nuclear. The fact that this is an unhappy reality does not make it any less of a reality. The other base-load alternative is massive reliance on coal and that is not possible in an era of real concern over global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
Every nuclear power plant operating in the world today represents millions of barrels of oil not consumed. Indeed, one can, ironically, argue that we have served our descendants by the use of nuclear power since they will inherit the oil we did not use. Each plant also represents tens of millions of dollars not sent to OPEC but kept in the American economy. This call for nuclear power, of course, goes against every instinct of most environmentalists. It also offends those concerned with the issue of nuclear safety and the attendant issue of the disposal of nuclear waste. These concerns are very real and will never disappear.
When I was struggling with the issue of nuclear power as a Congressman and Senator in the 1970's, there was furious debate among my staff members and outside advisors. The split saw my strong environmental supporters aligned with my political advisors. The argument was clear. Environmentalists were fiercely anti-nuclear. They were my most dedicated loyalists. And they had valid concerns that were always being casually dismissed by utilities and governments alike. Being antinuclear would be substantively correct and politically beneficial.
On the other side was my energy staff person. He was not unsympathetic to the logic arrayed against him. He thought the nuclear industry and the utilities had been mindless, stubborn and reactionary. He thought that they had become their own worst enemy for good reason.
But, he asked, if you eliminate nuclear what do you put in its stead? What exactly is the replacement process for shutting down the nuclear option? Tell me specifically what substitutes for what.
At first we provided the expected response about conservation and renewables. But when you tried to put numbers on them, there was a huge gap no matter how aggressively we pushed these options.
That left oil, gas and coal. All were finite and oil and coal had particular problems if you overloaded the system with them. While gas would be a clean energy source it would not substitute for everything else.
In the end, there were no open doors left.
Accepting this was excruciating. Politically it was all downside. It remains the most difficult and uncomfortable policy position I have ever taken. But today, more than a decade later, I still feel the same way.
That doesn't eliminate the real problems with nuclear energy. But they have to be viewed in context.
It is much easier to have those concerns dominate our policy since they are immediate, and the dire consequences that are the focus of this paper may be decades away. My responsibility is to today, of course, but it is even stronger to those who have not lived the half century I have enjoyed. A policy that disregards the viability of our descendants is a policy of no moral value. This looking beyond ourselves is part of the return to purpose.
Further, it should be noted that the greenhouse effect is a compelling argument by itself for nuclear power. If the buildup of carbon dioxide is indeed a threat to the world's climate, then an energy source which produces no carbon dioxide should have some currency. This is an extremely difficult divide for environmentalists to cross. But the debate has begun.
It's a matter of evaluating risks. The risk of a nuclear accident is quite knowable. The risk of rising oceans has never been experienced and thus elicits no strong fears. But one can begin to imagine the dimensions of such a calamity. For me I choose to take the greenhouse effect very seriously. I hope I'm wrong.
Finally, it is interesting to see how differently governments have treated this issue of nuclear power. France is a country ruled by the liberal Socialist Party yet is driving toward virtually full dependence upon nuclear power. They see it as freedom from oil dependence and an end to the financial hemorrhaging of that dependence.
Japan and South Korea are strong adherents of nuclear as their electricity producer.
Germany is ruled by the conservative Christan Democrats yet has closed off the nuclear option. Others have as well.
In the long run which countries will benefit? In my mind, the French have done the most to secure their energy future. They have decided upon a course which if followed by other nations will render the Persian Gulf less critical and thereby less likely to result in the kind of dilemma we now face there. It will result in less oil demand, thereby sooner or later there will not be an American company able to build a nuclear power plant. All of the know-how will be Japanese or French or whatever. And when the world recognizes the need for non-fossil fuel base-load generation and turns to nuclear we will again have lost our competitive position. The trade implications of this are obvious. But it also means loss of U.S. influence on issues such as safety design and waste disposal. The role of the federal government is critical here because only it can take the steps necessary to coordinate the emergence of the new nuclear power option. The President and Congress must jointly agree as to the necessity for this option and then provide the leadership to work with industry to make it happen. This will involve issues such as funding, regulation and site selection.
Fossil Fuels
People who don't like to contemplate the nuclear option will want to take refuge in the notion that we can always go back to finding more fossil fuels.
People who dismiss conservation and renewables will do the same.
Let's go out and extract more oil and gas. This is, in essence, the current policy.
The scarcity of oil reserves contrasts with the more plentiful reserves of gas in North America so the two are not to be seen as identical. But the prime weakness here is the obvious - the more we find and extract, the less there will be. We obviously do need a vibrant oil and gas drilling and production capability. For the next few decades this capacity is absolutely essential.
But beyond the available U.S. oil reserves, particularly in the Southwestern states, the options are less attractive.
Take the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. There are two possible approaches. First, go in, exploit it and secure the several months at most supply said to possibly exist there. Whatever environmental damage occurs, that is just the price that has to be paid.
Second, keep the oil in the ground, preserve the environment and treat that oil (if it exists) as available to future generations whose need will be much more acute than ours. Obviously, the first approach offers greater current political advantage. The second, however, offers greater fulfillment to the generational responsibility. Guess which one George Bush chose?
But the second also offers strategic value as well. As we face future crisis after future crisis occasioned by our dependence upon foreign oil, are we not better positioned if we have put into place alternatives and conservation and have the maximum amount of fossil fuels still in the ground? Put another way, does not a Drain America First approach maximize our vulnerability?
But beyond these arguments, the Bush proposal to open up the Artie Wildlife Refuge bespeaks of how much our oil addiction has diminished all our other values. Alaska is not just another place. It is the most beautiful and most preserved land on earth. It is, by far, the grandest gesture we have made in deference to God's wondrous creation. To seek to put the wildlife refuge at risk while balking at a gasoline tax to achieve the same net result is hypocrisy in the extreme for someone who talked about wanting to be the environmental president. The Democrats in 1992 should commit to veto any effort to despoil this part of Alaska as a substitute for an inevitable energy policy. In many respects, this issue is a "defining moment" for our values as keepers of the land, protectors of nature's wildlife and guardians of the energy needs of our descendents.
But even in the lower forty-eight states, the concern is where the fossil fuels will come from. Once the relatively easy oil and gas reserves are tapped you begin to get into some pretty dicey alternatives. Drilling a hole to extract oil is one thing. Crushing a mountain to extract oil shale is quite another. Drilling a hole to extract gas is one thing. Mining arid regions of the country for coal is quite another.
This is not to argue against fossil fuel development. That will happen and should happen in the decades of transition. Indeed, the nation is looking to natural gas to step in and substitute for oil in ways unexpected just a few years ago.
This, combined with the development of ethanol, methanol and other alternative fuels, offers real time hope of lessening our Persian Gulf addiction. However, the fact remains that the conservation/renewables/nuclear options should be put at the head of the energy line. Only by doing that can we contemplate the wonders of grandchildren and great grandchildren without the burden of knowing we have sacrificed them for our own comfort and convenience.
Index
| Introduction |
1 |
||
| I. |
Economic Survival –
The Creation of National Wealth |
5 |
|
| II. |
Education –
The Meeting House of Our Society |
32 |
|
| III. |
The Environment —
Equilibrium With Earth |
38 |
|
| IV. |
Energy, Fossil
Fuels – Someday There Won't Be Any |
47 |
|
| V. |
Foreign Policy – Time
to Heal Thyself |
58 |
|
| VI. |
The
Culture of America – The Essential Need |
70 |
|
| VII. |
Return to Purpose |
85 |
|
| VIII. |
Biography |
86 |
Copyright © 2023 Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in
Action. 