Ah, My Old Friend Energy

When I started out, this blog was mainly about energy issues (read the archives - it's true!) but I can't remember the last time I wrote about anything remotely energy related. And then Matthew Yglesias wrote at TAPPED today

"The main case for changing our treatment of oil -- and energy in general -- is the same old one liberals were making before September 11 and really ought to stick to: fossil fuels are bad for the environment."

Environmentalism, in contrast to "Energy Independence" (according to Matt) is a more workable political spin. Oh, how I wish it were so.

Every poll since the early 1990s has shown that support for environmentalism is miles wide and inches deep. Quick - name one election anywhere that was won on environmental issues. That's not to say I don't think it's important to keep environmental issues front and centre - breathable air is nice (and especially when you're still recovering from a flu!) However, the policies that are needed have to appeal to the pocketbook, politics, and environmentalism of a large slice of the population. What Matt misses, I think, is that "Energy Independence" can, properly formulated, serve all three goals.

First off, energy independence cannot simply mean that we are oil-independent. The US imports 1/2 of it's oil, and US production has been in decline for 35 years. Interestingly enough, we in Canada are in much the same position, despite Alberta. Despite the fact that our domestic production is 150% of our domestic consumption, we actually import almost half (900,000 of 2.2 million barrels consumed) of our oil. Obviously, having the world's largest oil importer directly underneath us has its benefits. But even if the US were to absorb our entire production (leaving Canada to freeze) they still couldn't meet even 2/3 of their demand. So oil-independence is a delusion. Rather, "energy independence" will by definition mean encouraging new forms of energy, like solar, wind, and biofuels - who knows, maybe even hydrogen.

Secondly, this would pay huge dividends for the economy, on many levels. The IAGS estimates that 800,000 US jobs are lost every year from the money sent to the Persian Gulf, and the benefits of cheaper fuels should be immediately apparent in a world where $50 barrels of oil are the new norm.

Finally, the environmental benefits would be huge. Energy independence, in the North American context, has to mean getting off oil and natural gas. We could probably go all-coal if we absolutely had to, but I can't imagine that people will accept the new coal plants that would entail - not when we've got some morons complaining about windmills. Besides, we're busy exporting that pollution to North Asia (Korea and Japan are complaining about Chinese acid rain.) We could also conceivably go nuclear - I'm basically agnostic on nuclear issues these days, but I have yet to be convinced they're worth the costs. (Though Engineer-Poet has an interesting idea at the Ergosphere.) But far more likely, cheap solar and wind will, if properly encouraged, absorb any new demand, while increased efficiency eventually makes coal and gas plants obsolete.

But trying to sell this as an environmentalist project is, frankly speaking, bound to fail. Between the Bush administration's efforts to muddy the scientific waters and the somewhat pipe-dreamish ideas surrounding hydrogen, the public isn't receptive to doing these things to save the spotted owl or the island of Tuvalu. But the combination of economic and national-security issues bound up with "energy independence" might just be enough to drive the transformation we need.

For some more detailed ideas about energy, read Natural Capitalism or Winning the Oil Endgame.