Where's The Energy Debate?
posted by Will
Energy independence will preempt the wars of the future long before missile defense saves us from anything.
Britain is having a nuclear power debate. Here’s the Times and the Guardian. Where are the Democrats on this? All Iraq all the time? It can easily be argued, obviously, that there is a link between Iraq and energy policy...
cont'd after link
The lynchpin of America’s future security is being left to a Congressional conference committee. The debate about pros and cons in Britain going on right now over nuclear power is at least closer to the kind of serious discussion of our energy future that we need to have. It does descend into bickering, and it does turn around a lot of false dichotomies. Everyone in this country, when they have the presence of mind to even think about the future of energy in this country, seems to settle on one single answer to the problem. Oh, it’s obvious that we need to build more nuclear power plants, or wind turbines, or hydroelectric dams, or drill in ANWR, or build fields of solar panels in California, or secure Iraqi oil fields and install a government that can serve the dual purpose of both not being a dictatorship (“Freedom”), and selling us oil (“Other Interests” or “Trade”).
Any claim that either (a) only one answer is good and all the rest are bad, or (b) any single answer could solve all our long-term energy problems is disingenuous and useless almost to the point of comedy. (Leave aside the silliness of any claims that global warming isn’t at least a long-term threat on the one hand, or that we can achieve energy independence simply by buying more hybrid cars and turning off the lights diligently when we’re done parking it in the garage next to our other car, the Expedition we can’t afford to drive anymore.) No, energy policy solutions will be messy, very far from anyone’s ideal, and will include some version of all the strategies and technologies above (here’s hoping it doesn’t include ANWR, the self-righteously symbolic and empty-headed brainchild from the same people who get campaign contributions from companies that sell only foreign oil).
Democratic energy policy proposals need to at least try to be as realistic about costs and advantages as the British debaters seem to be. While it is very nice to imagine an environmentally sound energy system springing into existence soon, it won’t happen. The American economy is too big, and the politics of business in this country are too messy and underhanded for any honest reform to happen with any speed. Energy Utopianism is a waste of time, and it makes Democrats too vulnerable to the dishonest smear attacks that claim they hate American business just because we don’t want all children to get asthma and all rain to be acid. A piecemeal approach is the only way this country will make any effort toward attaining the new systems that we will need this century. Some of this, some of that, throw out the worst and prima facie useless proposals, but in general, if there is some evidence that some technology might help ten years or thirty years down the road, let’s fund it. If it involves a few newly designed, high efficiency, and secure-from-terrorism nuclear generators to get us through the interim while we wait for a less toxic alternative to become practical, we surely won’t like it, but so be it. (Especially if the new plants can replace older, more unstable versions.)
I think we need to blend a little of our thought process regarding military weapons purchases with our energy strategy. First, don’t worry about what is the only weapon we’ll need, just try to imagine all the scenarios in which any weapon might prove useful (see: Osprey). The US military has a lot more than AK-47s and white phosphorous--they have many many weapons systems that are no longer appropriate to the threats we face.
Instead of saying, “Nuclear power is the only answer”, or “Hydrogen cars are an energy panacea”, or even “Bio-diesel will provide limitless tasty-smelling transportation”, let’s fund research and development in all of them. Make them all better, cheaper, and more readily available as choices for American consumers. They will eventually defeat in the marketplace all of the dirty, foreign, inefficient and toxic sources of energy we now rely on. Second, develop American jobs-creation plans to develop, build and maintain these new energy infrastructures. Remember when we talked about jobs in this country? Fight for their survival in congress as hard as members currently like to fight for military programs in their states and districts. Instead of Air Force bases full of fighter jets we’ll never use, we’ll have energy sources that, while likely imperfect, would still be better than extra fighter jets or missile defense systems.
My point is this: instead of recklessly wasting trillions of dollars in the coming years on weapons systems ill-suited to the military and terror threats that we will plausibly face, let’s throw all the money at energy solutions. Sure, some of it will be wasted, not all plans will work, but some might. And you know what happens when we make progress in the “war on energy dependence”, don’t you? We can start to imagine a world that is slightly less full of war and diplomatic strife that is, ahem, fueled by energy crises and the jitters over how all the world, once it is industrialized, could possibly be powered by the dwindling fossil resources we’ve been relying on for a century. Someday, someone will find a clean, cheap, and fully renewable source of energy. I think such a revolution would be progress of truly unfathomable power. Wouldn’t it be nice to have that happen during our lifetimes, rather than just ever-increasing tensions in the developed world over all the problems and limitations of our turn-of-the-last-century technologies? We could stop funding Saudi Arabia. We could stop being vulnerable to hurricanes and refining capacities. Can anyone in their right mind envisage a stable, attractive, and positive future that is run on oil, coal, and low efficiency nuclear power? Only if they also think the Osprey is or ever was a good idea.
Britain is having a nuclear power debate. Here’s the Times and the Guardian. Where are the Democrats on this? All Iraq all the time? It can easily be argued, obviously, that there is a link between Iraq and energy policy...
cont'd after link
The lynchpin of America’s future security is being left to a Congressional conference committee. The debate about pros and cons in Britain going on right now over nuclear power is at least closer to the kind of serious discussion of our energy future that we need to have. It does descend into bickering, and it does turn around a lot of false dichotomies. Everyone in this country, when they have the presence of mind to even think about the future of energy in this country, seems to settle on one single answer to the problem. Oh, it’s obvious that we need to build more nuclear power plants, or wind turbines, or hydroelectric dams, or drill in ANWR, or build fields of solar panels in California, or secure Iraqi oil fields and install a government that can serve the dual purpose of both not being a dictatorship (“Freedom”), and selling us oil (“Other Interests” or “Trade”).
Any claim that either (a) only one answer is good and all the rest are bad, or (b) any single answer could solve all our long-term energy problems is disingenuous and useless almost to the point of comedy. (Leave aside the silliness of any claims that global warming isn’t at least a long-term threat on the one hand, or that we can achieve energy independence simply by buying more hybrid cars and turning off the lights diligently when we’re done parking it in the garage next to our other car, the Expedition we can’t afford to drive anymore.) No, energy policy solutions will be messy, very far from anyone’s ideal, and will include some version of all the strategies and technologies above (here’s hoping it doesn’t include ANWR, the self-righteously symbolic and empty-headed brainchild from the same people who get campaign contributions from companies that sell only foreign oil).
Democratic energy policy proposals need to at least try to be as realistic about costs and advantages as the British debaters seem to be. While it is very nice to imagine an environmentally sound energy system springing into existence soon, it won’t happen. The American economy is too big, and the politics of business in this country are too messy and underhanded for any honest reform to happen with any speed. Energy Utopianism is a waste of time, and it makes Democrats too vulnerable to the dishonest smear attacks that claim they hate American business just because we don’t want all children to get asthma and all rain to be acid. A piecemeal approach is the only way this country will make any effort toward attaining the new systems that we will need this century. Some of this, some of that, throw out the worst and prima facie useless proposals, but in general, if there is some evidence that some technology might help ten years or thirty years down the road, let’s fund it. If it involves a few newly designed, high efficiency, and secure-from-terrorism nuclear generators to get us through the interim while we wait for a less toxic alternative to become practical, we surely won’t like it, but so be it. (Especially if the new plants can replace older, more unstable versions.)
I think we need to blend a little of our thought process regarding military weapons purchases with our energy strategy. First, don’t worry about what is the only weapon we’ll need, just try to imagine all the scenarios in which any weapon might prove useful (see: Osprey). The US military has a lot more than AK-47s and white phosphorous--they have many many weapons systems that are no longer appropriate to the threats we face.
Instead of saying, “Nuclear power is the only answer”, or “Hydrogen cars are an energy panacea”, or even “Bio-diesel will provide limitless tasty-smelling transportation”, let’s fund research and development in all of them. Make them all better, cheaper, and more readily available as choices for American consumers. They will eventually defeat in the marketplace all of the dirty, foreign, inefficient and toxic sources of energy we now rely on. Second, develop American jobs-creation plans to develop, build and maintain these new energy infrastructures. Remember when we talked about jobs in this country? Fight for their survival in congress as hard as members currently like to fight for military programs in their states and districts. Instead of Air Force bases full of fighter jets we’ll never use, we’ll have energy sources that, while likely imperfect, would still be better than extra fighter jets or missile defense systems.
My point is this: instead of recklessly wasting trillions of dollars in the coming years on weapons systems ill-suited to the military and terror threats that we will plausibly face, let’s throw all the money at energy solutions. Sure, some of it will be wasted, not all plans will work, but some might. And you know what happens when we make progress in the “war on energy dependence”, don’t you? We can start to imagine a world that is slightly less full of war and diplomatic strife that is, ahem, fueled by energy crises and the jitters over how all the world, once it is industrialized, could possibly be powered by the dwindling fossil resources we’ve been relying on for a century. Someday, someone will find a clean, cheap, and fully renewable source of energy. I think such a revolution would be progress of truly unfathomable power. Wouldn’t it be nice to have that happen during our lifetimes, rather than just ever-increasing tensions in the developed world over all the problems and limitations of our turn-of-the-last-century technologies? We could stop funding Saudi Arabia. We could stop being vulnerable to hurricanes and refining capacities. Can anyone in their right mind envisage a stable, attractive, and positive future that is run on oil, coal, and low efficiency nuclear power? Only if they also think the Osprey is or ever was a good idea.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home