ENERVENTION

If we indeed have one, our current energy policy is flawed in two significant ways: its objectives are unrealistic and its tools are deficient. Unless we fix both soon, we are headed toward an energy catastrophe. Let’s look at the objectives first.

 

According to governments own figures, fossil fuels account for 84% of our nation’s energy use. To put that into perspective, our fossil fuel usage is more than the total amount of energy used by the country of China and nearly as much as the total energy consumption of all the European countries in 2006.

 

If we have an energy policy today, it seems to be a policy of increasing taxes on fossil energy companies, blocking development of fossil energy projects, and denying fossil energy producers access to public lands and offshore waters. In spite of a 21% increase in projected energy demand by 2035, the current administration apparently believes that policies which encourage the development of renewable resources will offset both the increase in demand and the effects of restrictive policy on providers of 84% of our current energy use.

 

It is difficult to imagine how the transition imagined by the administration can occur swiftly. In 2009, all renewable energy systems (except wood burned in a few small power plants) provided 1.7% of our needs. The Energy Information Administration projects that the total from renewables will increase to 2.95% by 2035. Their definition of renewable includes all solar, wind, grid-connected electricity from landfill gas, biogenic municipal waste, and non-electric energy from renewable sources, such as active and passive solar systems.

 

Energy transformations take time. The transition from wood to coal in England that triggered the Industrial Revolution took more than 200 years. Even the relatively fast adoption of natural gas in America took decades and that resource displaced only about 30% of the competing energy sources.

 

Now, let’s look at our tools.

 

John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, makes the point that intelligent energy policy requires a time frame of decades and is incompatible with two- or four-year election cycles. Our policy needs to be based on some lasting principles. Anyone who lived through the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo can easily imagine where we would be today if we had adopted principle-based policy.

 

Americans are quite capable of dealing with the enormous energy challenges that face us. We are very good at managing big projects. Both government and the private sector have managed huge projects successfully in the past, like the Interstate Highway System and the nuclear powered submarine respectively. These projects were based on a clear and realistic understanding of where we were, where we wanted to go and a step-by-step plan of how to get there.

 

In energy policy today, those planning fundamentals are sadly lacking. Here’s an example.

 

Currently, global grain stocks are razor thin, resulting in higher food prices worldwide. "Today there are 7 billion mouths to feed and many of them depend on American agriculture," says Debbie Stabenow, Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The United States is the largest agricultural exporter in the world. Yet our current energy policy looks to increase corn-based ethanol limits from a 10% to a 15% blend in gasoline. The Government Accountability Office projects that 30% of America’s corn crop will be needed for ethanol by 2012. Corn ethanol produces only 30% more energy than it takes to produce it, but the Iowa Caucuses have an enormous influence on the presidential election—and Iowa is a major corn producer.

 

There are many things that can be done to reduce the impact of the energy challenges that face us. There are things we can do as individuals, as regional and local communities, and as a nation to lower our energy intensity, but if we continue along our current path, those solutions will be neither voluntary nor adaptive. We are entering an era of energy shortfall in an increasingly competitive global environment. Already, those energy sources that we feel are somehow beneath us are being eagerly pursued by emerging economies throughout the world. If we continue on our current path, solutions will be forced upon us and we will, in the end, come to the same place, but with great deal more pain and suffering.