America's Energy Future (Part One): Is the President on the Right Track?

On Tuesday, January 25, 2011, President Barak Obama delivered his second State of the Union Address to a symbollically more conciliatory congress.  Similar to his 2010 address, the president called for increased investment in so-called 'green energy' technology and jobs.  Then surprisingly, the president challenged America to attain an 85% green energy economy by 2035.  Currently less than 15% of the U.S. economy is dependent on non-fossil fuels, and if nuclear energy is taken out of the equation, the number is less than 7% (Institute for Energy Research).  Political and media reactions to the president's address the following day were mixed, but most focused on either trivial aspects of the speech or the president's call for increased federal spending in spite of the massive debt America has already accrued.  Still, the president's energy remarks are worth a second look.

One can interpret the president's insistence upon 'green energy' as a recognition that this nation is at a critical crossroad.  As the president remarked, America has a choice; we may continue to depend on the energy of the past or find ways to create energy technology for the future.  President Obama's trivial "winning the future" slogan aside, his emphasis on an aggressive policy of transitioning to new forms of energy is well founded and should be heeded.  Like many others in our country, I am deeply concerned about government debt, both federally and locally.  America is in a huge financial crisis and massive government spending, even in the energy sector, is foolish.  However, this does not mean that private companies and individuals cannot take the lead in developing viable energy alternatives to America's current dependence upon fossil fuels.

Here is our dilemma.  The vast majority of energy consumption in the U.S. comes from fossil fuels, namely oil, natural gas and coal.  Without considering the ecological impact of this, America must wake up to the fact that current and projected oil reserves across the globe are dwindling at an alarming rate.  Virtually all estimates suggest that, at current rates of consumption, the world has approximately 40-50 years of oil left.  Given that China and India's economies alone are growing at an exponential rate, and will require much more oil than they do currently, current rates of fossil fuel consumption are expected to grow at a rate much, much higher than they are now. 

Add to this fact that, according to economist Ian Bremmer, a handful of countries – China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, U.A.E., Venezula, Brazil and Malaysia – control 75% of global oil reserves, and these countries directly control these reserves through state-owned and operated oil companies.  Clearly, America has a looming predicament to consider.  Think about it.  America has no 'state-owned oil company.'  Nor does Western Europe.  The largest oil companies are all multi-national corporations whose profitability is dependent upon share-holder faith and expectations.  Most important, for all the president's bloviating about 'big oil', the top sixteen privately-owned oil companies (Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, etc.) own or control less than 3% of the world's oil reserves today.  While they continue to earn huge profits, it is soley because they are much more efficient at oil extraction, and the simple fact that these companies control much of the refining capacity around the globe.  But as their technical expertise and productive efficiency no longer give them the competitive edge, their profits will dwindle and in a few decades most of these companies will either be extinct or have found some other way to survive. 

This is no small problem.  Most estimates I have seen, including data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, suggest that 60-75% of all oil and gas consumption in the U.S. comes from transportation.  Think about this.  If oil consumption estimates are correct, within the next twenty-five to forty years, NO CARS will run on gasoline, because there will be little to no gasoline upon which to operate them.  We might be able to stretch this number by quickly transitioning to a larger percentage of electricity-based cars, and perhaps bio-fuel cars, but this must be done quickly if we are going to make a significant dent in the rate of decline in global oil reserves.  Such a move, however, would put a drastic burden upon America's electric utility companies, requiring them to invest in much more coal consumption, since the vast bulk of America's electricity production is coal based.  

We cannot transition entirely to bio-fuels for cars, because the effect on food production would be catastrophic.  We can switch to natural gas powered cars, but this would affect the rate of decline in natural gas reserves.  While current estimates suggest that we have at least 100 years of natural gas remaining, these estimates are based upon current consumption rates.  Who knows what switching to natural gas as a transportation strategy will do to the rate of decline in gas reserves?  No matter what we do as a country with regard to energy consumption, America and the world are facing difficult decisions, and these are coming faster than most people realize.

The president is right to focus on this problem, and his current strategies, while not the ultimate solution to the coming energy crisis, may forestall the crisis for several decades beyond the 50 or so years we have left.  Of course, all this disaster talk is based on current projections with regard to global energy reserves, and it is true that some industry experts don't quite agree on the rate at which oil and gas reserves will be depleted.  For instance, two of my sources in the oil industry (anonymous) agree that oil reserves are dwindling, but that we probably have more than the 40-50 year window that seems to be the majority view these days.  But when pressed regarding how much more time we have, my sources are reluctant to project much beyond these estimates. 

Even if we have 100 years of oil and 150 years of natural gas remaining, we need to address this problem now.  Why?  In short, currently, we have no technology other than that which uses fossil fuels for energy that can power large transcontinental and intercontinental aircraft, like passenger and cargo jets.  We can use nuclear power for large ocean going vessels, but not for aircraft.  The world depends heavily upon the ability to move quickly between states, countries and continents.  At this point, we can use renewable energy for home heating, even cars, but not those mighty metal birds of the sky that move people in large numbers across even larger distances.  Without this ability, long distance travel will be greatly hampered, and the time it takes to go from, let's say, New York to Los Angeles or Paris will increase from hours to days.  And this does not account for the fact that, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. military is the largest single consumer of oil and gas in our country, and sustaining such a large military force would be impossible if oil and gas reserves are severely depleted.

If we do not address the fossil fuel crisis in time, fossil fuels, as a practical source of energy, will no longer be viable, and this may happen sooner than we think.  It may be that this disaster scenario is far fetched, but if the experts are right, it won't be too long before the price of gas at the pump will be the least of our worries.  For all the cries about global warming and ecological disaster with regard to fossil fuel consumption, we need not appeal to climate change to insist on the urgency of dealing with our dependency upon fossil fuels.  America needs to face this problem now, not tomorrow.  The crisis may not come in my lifetime, but it will certainly come in my daughter's lifetime, and by the time she has grandchildren, the world may be living in the dark, literally.  Let's avoid a second 'dark ages' please.

David Adcock, Managing Editor  (January 30, 2011)

A Strong Voice From Our Past   It is proper to demand more from the man with exceptional advantages than from the man without them. A heavy moral obligation rests upon the man of means and upon the man of education to do their full duty by their country. On no class does this obligation rest more heavily than upon the men with a collegiate education, the men who are graduates of our universities. Their education gives them no right to feel the least superiority over any of their fellow citizens; but it certainly ought to make them feel that they should stand foremost in the honorable effort to serve the whole public by doing their duty as Americans in the body politic.   …the man of business and the man of science, the doctor of divinity and the doctor of law. The architect, the engineer, and the writer, all alike owe a positive duty to the community, the neglect of which they cannot excuse on any plea of their private affairs. They are bound to follow understandingly the course of public events; they are bound to try to estimate and form judgment upon public men; and they are bound to act intelligently and effectively in support of the principles which they deem to be right and for the best interests of the country.   …the educated man must realize that he is living in a democracy and under democratic conditions, and that he is entitled to no more respect and consideration than he can win by actual performance.   There is however, a need for proper critical work. Wrongs should be strenuously and fearlessly denounced; evil principles and evil men should be condemned. The politician who cheats or swindles, or the newspaperman who lies in any form, should be made to feel that he is an object of scorn for all honest men. We need fearless criticism, but we need that it should also be intelligent. At present, the man who is most apt to regard himself as an intelligent critic of our political affairs is often the man who knows nothing whatever about them. Criticism which is ignorant or prejudiced is a source of great harm to the nation; and where ignorant or prejudiced critics are themselves educated men, their attitude does real harm also the class to which they belong.   The tone of a portion of the press of the country toward public men, and especially toward political opponents, is degrading, all forms of coarse and noisy slander being apparently considered legitimate weapons to employ against men of the opposite party of faction. Unfortunately, not a few of the journals that pride themselves upon being independent in politics, and the organs of cultivated men, betray the same characteristics in a less coarse but quite as noxious form. All these journals do great harm by accustoming good citizens to see their public men, good and bad, assailed indiscriminately as scoundrels. The effect is twofold: the citizen learning, on the one hand, to disbelieve any statement he sees in any newspaper, so that the attacks on evil lose their edge; and on the other, gradually acquiring a deep-rooted belief that all public men are more or less bad. In consequence, his political instinct becomes hopelessly blurred, and he grows unable to tell the good representative from the bad. The worst offense that can be committed against the republic is the offense of the public man who betrays his trust; but second only to it comes the offense of the man who tries to persuade others that an honest and efficient public man is dishonest or unworthy.   Good can often be done by criticizing sharply and severely the wrong; but excessive indulgence in criticism is never anything but bad, and no amount of criticism can in any way take the place of active and zealous warfare for the right.   In conclusion, then, the man with a university education is in honor bound to take an active part in our political life, and to do his full duty as a citizen by helping his fellow citizens to the extent of his power in the exercise of the rights of self-government. He is bound to rank action far above criticism, and to understand that the man deserving of credit is the man who actually does the things, even though imperfectly, and not the man who confines himself to talking about how they ought to be done. He is bound to have a high ideal and to strive to realize it, and yet he must make up his mind that he will never be able to get the highest good, and that he must devote himself with all his energy to getting the best that he can. Finally, his work must be disinterested and honest, and it must be given without regard to his own success of failure, and without regard to the effect it has upon his own fortunes; and while he must show the virtues of uprightness and tolerance and gentleness, he must also show the sterner virtues of courage, resolution, and hardihood, and of desire to war with merciless effectiveness against the existence of wrong.   Excerpts from: "The College Graduate and Public Life," Theodore Roosevelt, first published in The Atlantic Monthly in August of 1894, and recently republished in The American Idea: The Best of the Atlantic Monthly, edited by Robert Vare. If these acknowledgements are not sufficient to satisfy any copyright issues that The Atlantic Monthly Group may have, I alone am responsible for this partial reproduction. Of course, it may be considered in the public domain at this point, and the entire essay can be viewed at:   www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-college-graduate-and-public-life/4483/   Many of our contemporary politicians and leaders are fond of comparing themselves to grand figures from our past, and I think it unfortunate that Theodore Roosevelt is rarely, if ever, mentioned. Here surely is a leader worthy of emulation, a man whose words ring as true today as they must have when first published over one hundred years ago. Indeed, apart from differences in style this essay might well have been written yesterday, which may or may not be an indication of how history repeats itself. I actually find it somewhat comforting—bad though things may seem to us today, it turns out that, in my opinion at least, not much has changed in the last hundred years, though every generation seems to feel that theirs are the worst of times.   Additionally, our politicians are certainly not the only part of the electorate who could benefit from revisiting the published works Mr. Roosevelt; those of us who spend a great deal of time carping and wringing our hands while, in the words of John Mayer, we are "waiting on the world to change," need also take heed. I know that in my case at least, fervently wishing for a leader with the determination, wisdom, dedication, and drive of Teddy Roosevelt to emerge from the pack is simply not enough; this essay can be seen as a call to action for us all.   Finally, we need not stop just with the writings of Mr. Roosevelt. An examination of his life and those of his family show that he was one of those rare individuals who not only "talked the talk," but also "walked the walk," and he apparently inspired his sons to follow his lead. His was truly a lifetime of service to his country, a man born into wealth who nevertheless felt duty bound to do that which he could for the good of the people. Rare indeed, at least in these modern times; to use an oft-quoted statement—they just don't make them like they used to!   —John Stegall

The Illusion of Safety in the Land of the Free There can be no mistaking the fact that recent events in Tucson were tragic. With six people killed by a lone gunman and another fourteen injured the grief and outrage are natural enough, especially considering that a nine-year-old girl is among the dead. That which follows is not any way an examination of the tragedy itself, but rather my opinion on the reaction to this sad affair. In other words, no disrespect is intended toward any of the victims or their families. Not long after the ambulances cleared the scene the media, politicians, and talk-show pundits went into high gear. I think the pattern of coverage following this type of calamity is well established and should by now be familiar to us all—shock and outrage rapidly followed by interviews with friends and acquaintances of the perpetrator(s), at least some of whom will remark on their past concerns regarding actions, statements, and the overall stability of the guilty party. Such of course is the case with this latest gunman, and while these post-crime revelations feed even more outrage into the pipeline—"How could they not have seen this coming? Why was preemptive action not taken?"—I have difficulty understanding why any of this should come as a shock? I am of the opinion that anyone who opens fire with the intent of killing people, irregardless of motive or venue, surely has at least some issues regarding mental-stability, and in most cases there are likely to be signs of this prior to whatever breaking point tips them over the edge. The problem in a free society is not only discerning what behavior requires intervention, but also, who is going to get involved and to what extent? Who defines what is potentially dangerous from what may just be strange; for that matter, who defines strange? Ultimately, who can predict what any one person may or may not be capable of under duress? I suspect that, in all but the most extreme cases, the answer is no one. The mass media and pundits, along with a fair sampling of our elected officials, apparently feel otherwise. I sampled a little of the online reporting on the Tucson event, as well as the talk radio circuit, and not surprisingly found most of it disappointing if not downright idiotic. We of course have the normal political finger-pointing—socialists blaming both the left and the right; some members of the left blaming the right, and vice versa; pundits from across the political spectrum blaming "harsh rhetoric," and Sarah Palin's map using gun-sights to denote target states— along with calls for stronger gun-control and hand-wringing commentary on how we need to make our country more safe. To cover just a couple of examples, I read a post on the World Socialist Web Site, and found this to be the first line— "The shooting rampage on Saturday in Tucson, Arizona was clearly an act of right-wing terrorism." A little farther down page one is even more astounding news— "But the facts are clear. The initial information about the gunman…establishes that he was under the influence of ultra-right politics…references to the [second] US Constitution, treasonous laws, currencies not backed by gold—which reproduce the coded language of the far right." Let me say here that I have not previously visited this website, and therefore have no idea what their overall credibility rating is, but this piece is one of wildest and most incredible bits of journalism I have ever read. I suppose it may be possible that Jared Loughner is just a cog in the machine of a larger conspiracy, this despite a complete lack of evidence at this date. Most dismaying of all, if having a problem with the Federal Reserve makes a person ultra-right, I am going to have completely review my own personal philosophy; perhaps I am not a "left-of-center moderate" after all?! At any rate, being under the influence of any rhetoric, not to mention seeing a political map with gun-sights displayed, should in no way steer a normal person to violence. From NYDailyNews— Former Governor Sarah Palin: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle…It's inexcusable and incomprehensible why a man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day." This may be the first time I have agreed with anything Sarah Palin has said. Finally, from MSNBC— Representative Dutch Rupersberger's press secretary: "The congressman is determined to keep interacting with the public, but wants to make sure he and his constituents are not put at risk." This morning's headline story is entitled: "Lessons of Tucson: Can We Learn From Them? A week later, citizens wonder if we'll ever know enough to stop the next rampage…" I understand that both the politicians and the media have a job to do, the people need to hear something, and I suppose it would be politically incorrect and/or dangerous for job-security to speak the truth. Since I have no such restrictions, I will lay it out, or at least, the truth as I see it. Assuming that we wish to continue to live in a free country, we will never be able to either "eliminate risk" or "know enough to stop the next rampage." Unless we want to ride around in APCs, wear body armor, and arm the entire populace, we will remain vulnerable, there being no preventative measures that can protect us from the occasional madman. As noted above, identifying potential "gunmen" is problematic, again assuming that we value our civil liberties, and as a staunch supporter of our Constitution, I am unalterably opposed to more aggressive gun control. Although I am certainly not a fan of clichés, "guns do not kill people, people kill people" is a statement with which I heartily agree. I was handling a rifle before the age of ten, and spent most of my youth with a grandfather who owned several pistols, shotguns, high-powered rifles, and semi-automatic carbine of World War II vintage; we never shot anyone, and in all likelihood never will. Likewise, that pesky First Amendment makes it difficult if not impossible to regulate public discourse, so we can forget about any rhetoric being toned-down; it is, at any rate, ridiculous to blame words for the action of the deranged. I am certainly not suggesting that we accept things as they are. Stringent efforts towards making our country safer are absolutely necessary for the good of the public. We simply must be realistic with our expectations, and not be prepared to give up any more of our freedom for the perception of safety; there has been more than enough of this since September 11, 2001. We need to understand that any amount of freedom, once relinquished, is very difficult indeed to regain. Safety is truly an illusion. —John Stegall