|
As the candidates of both parties attempt to lock in their respective nominations the emphasis will gradually shift to the "real" campaign - the one where the voters will decide who will be the next President. This means that the issues, rather than image and electability, will slowly come to the fore. One of these issues is energy. It is likely that the nominees will make the usual speeches about the need to secure our oil supply, develop renewable energy and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. The issue, however, goes well beyond that. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century economic development has increasingly been based on the power derived from burning fossil fuels. Exploitation of this natural reserve of readily available energy has permitted the high growth rates the world economy has experienced for the last two centuries. The initial source of fossil energy, coal, has gradually been replaced by petroleum, now the fuel of choice. For over a century petroleum - particularly in the US, has been abundant and cheap. This is now changing, for two main reasons. First, while there is plenty of oil left in the world, the easily accessible reservoirs have been exploited and are running down. "New" oil is getting hard to reach and is, on the average, far more expensive. It also requires more time, as well as considerable investment, to bring on stream. Second, a large and increasing portion of oil reserves is now controlled by governments. These, unlike oil companies, have no incentive to increase the supply. Nearly all of them use their oil industry as a cash cow to finance government budgets, so their interest lies in keeping the supply tight, the prices high, and the oil in the ground as long as possible. They will charge what the market will bear, and since oil is indispensable, the market will pay the higher price. Despite all the talk about renewable energy, nuclear power, ethanol, and so on, we are, in the near and medium term, faced with one hard fact: in the current state of the world (and US) economy, there is no ready substitute for petroleum. So far we have been nibbling at the edges of the problem, not solving it. This means that we must, as a nation, develop and implement a comprehensive response to the tightening and rapidly increasing price of our oil supply. This means not only dealing with the supply itself, but also, and most importantly, with the way it is used. There is a major difference between an economy based on cheap and plentiful energy, and one where energy use is constrained by cost and/or availability. Every human activity is affected: housing, transportation, manufacturing, consumption, agriculture, entertainment, work, and so on. This is not meant to imply that in this new situation the quality of life will necessarily be reduced - even though lifestyle will certainly be affected. The overall quality of life might actually improve, but the way we live will definitely change. Such changes will take considerable time, and they will require the development of a national consensus. This cannot happen through a top-down government program, but it will require vision and leadership that have so far been absent. Neither the current administration nor the candidates now running have treated energy as a serious problem. The Great Hydrogen Hope hyped up some years ago has been quietly buried and replaced by the Ethanol Solution, which instead of actually addressing the problem is generating a slew of additional ones. The electorate deserves better. Technically, there are solutions. Implementing these, however, requires extensive testing, planning, and technological development. All of them will require massive investment, which is not bad in itself, since domestic investment will generate high quality jobs we urgently need. But the magnitude of the investment, and the extensive planning associated with it, is beyond the capacity of private industry alone, so that some form of government intervention, in the form of a public-private partnership, will be necessary. The magnitude of the task is such that even an intense effort to generate a national consensus and a realistic strategy will take several years to produce tangible results. Implementation will take decades, and require a degree of national unity of purpose which we have not known since WW II and the 1960's Race to the Moon. How the current crop of candidates, both presidential and legislative, respond to this challenge will be a good determinant of their capacity to effectively serve the nation. The public should demand answers, and the leaders-to-be face up to the task.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed