Response to "So Much for Energy Independence"

"So Much for Energy Independence" ran in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (July 7, 09). Read Robert Bryce's article here. In it Robert Bryce claims that by moving away from drilling, we're heading towards being more reliant on foreign sources of oil and gas. Great points, but I wanted to offer an environmentalist's perspective as contrast.

Please feel free to offer your comments, et al. Thank you, Chris Searles (editor, Green4th.com)


###

Caveat: I'm an expert on the environmentalist info, not the climate bill or the fossil fuel industry. My perspectives are driven by seeing what the environment, and hence "us humans" need:


food, water, climate, biodiversity, sustainability...

In my opinion, these fundamentals to life are in jeopardy, and are in fact more important than the needs of our businesses... I caught an early mischaracterization in Mr. Bryce's argument.


Mischaracterization: In his article, Mr. Bryce tells his readers to focus on the numbers "98 and 190." He says the US "gets" 98 times as much energy when he really means we "consume" 98 times "more" of those particular feedstocks.

As a self-appointed eco activist, I can see that we need to re-organize the economy -- balancing it with what's good for our environmental security. Green jobs and green economy are really about transitioning people and industries out of endeavors that negatively impact the planet, into smarter ways of commerce. There's no magic. The western world's current (massive) industrial model was ignorant of future impacts when it started and as a result we are now trying to create demand and incentives for the solutions to these very economically-driven problems.


Subsidies: On the subsidies side ("190") ... I have no idea if Mr. Bryce's numbers are accurate. I do believe the fossil fuel industry has done a brilliant job of structuring a very self-serving marketplace and regulatory environment over the past 100 years. Clearly, fossil fuels are dominate and have earned their place to be so, fairly and unfairly. In my opinion, the powers that be in oil, gas, coal, and natural gas are the best entrepreneurs on the planet. They know the importance of regulation, competition, and "bottom line" better than anyone else out there, they're better at leveraging those tools than anyone else out there, and they've "shown up for work" consistently for the last 150 years, creating one of the wealthiest and most important business sectors in the history of the world.

But I think the industry's thirst for profit has gone too far, blinding its ability to see how its practices are negatively affecting humans and the planet...

They've kind of boxed themselves in.

So while the subsidies may look unfairly weighted for biofuels, the fossil fuel industry has gotten quite a few noticeable bonuses from the US gov. In recent memory: low emissions standards, low fuel efficiency standards, legislation that makes getting biofuels into commercial markets all but impossible (Texas, 2007). And, dare I say it, because I know these can be fightin' words -- Iraq, a war for the oil industry according to millions of self-informed, free thinkers here in the United States.

So, I think Mr. Bryce's subsidy arguments are short-sighted.


Obama Admin: The Obama Admin is clearly opposed to expanding oil and gas businesses. Sorry. They see this as a matter of national security. I think they know a lot about the recent declines in biological welfare and they are trying to incentivize a less environmentally-destructive economy (aka the "green" economy).

The desire to cut fossil fuel subsidies on the part of the Obama Admin has to do with environmental concerns (greenhouse gases). The desire to cut drilling subsidies has to do with long-view economic concerns (the outlook on what the US will gain from this type of "energy independence" is miniscule) --- and environmental concerns.

Admittedly liberal values, but...

According to numerous international wildlife agencies
we humans are currently losing species
1000xs higher than is natural.

Biology: In case you are not aware -- Americans and human beings have lost more habitat in the past 50 years than ever in the course of human history. We're destroying land, planet and species for profit. According to NUMEROUS international wildlife agencies we humans are currently losing species at a rate 1000xs higher than is natural. Lots of science says we'll have no more seafood to eat by 2050, for instance. Fossil fuels won't solve these problems.

Then what?

Drilling got America so very far, but it appears to be bad for Americans and human beings now.


My opinion: I don't think these problems are widely known or understood, especially in American Conservative culture. I don't believe anyone would WANT to gamble with making the current trends of declining food and biodiversity worse...

From the environmentalist perspective, all of these problems (food, water, climate, biodiversity, "sustainability," etc.) are tied to industrial development -- our fuels, our materials, our wastes, our expansion and sprawl... whoops!

Nature can't adapt this fast. Humans have to make some changes or continue losing things unseen.

Then what?

It's time to look realistically at the impacts
the fuel industries are having -- and adjust
for the good of the globe.

Future: To me, moving off of fossil fuels, and the economic strains required to do so, make sense. To me, it's oh so necessary. Admittedly, I don't have any investments in those businesses, but I think they've had their day and should be publicly lauded for having help to build us a brilliant, wealthy world. Now it's time to look realistically at the impacts those global industries are having -- and adjust for the good of the globe.

Political policy wrangling is coarse, and unfortunately there are definite losers. Hopefully "the globe" will not be the loser much longer.


Ethanol & Biofuels: Finally, his assault on Ethanol is interesting. I'm no expert here either - but, ethanol is one of MANY biological alternatives which can be grown in the US ... rapidly and renewably; the most exciting of which are algae-based, bacteria-based, and waste-based. We can, and are, reusing biological wastes to power vehicles.

It's a whole new economic model -- in infant stages. ExxonMobil and Massey Coal aren't set up for to capitalize on these new fuels yet, either. They have the $$ and the know-how, all they need now are the customers.

I'm getting 45 mpg in my 2003 bio-diesel.
No modifications, nothing special

What works: I run my 2003 VW Jetta on bio-diesel. The fuel literally comes from Austin area restaurants and costs about $0.10 more per gallon ($1.20 more per fill up). The reduction in air pollution and benefits to keeping oil out of the landfill are significant. And -- my car's got 189,000 miles on it. I'm getting 45 miles to the gallon. No modifications, nothing special. Affordable, less impactful, American-made. Works for me.



Thanks for reading, Chris