Common Cents Approach to Energy Policy

I’m looking forward to your comments on important environmental issues and society’s impact on them. The effects of socialization and the habits fostered by groups around us are well known. Does meaningful change start with changes in our individual lifestyles, changes in the laws that govern us, external changes in supply and demand or a combination of all three?

I also look forward to reading your comments on the energy proposals of our presidential candidates. Please read mine below regarding different approaches to our energy crisis and what I believe each option’s impacts will be for the planet, as well as its potential for rapid implementation and job creation.

A U.S. energy policy that balances present and future needs must be feasible and affordable in the short term, while rapidly reducing carbon emissions, which would also cut dependence on foreign fuels and improve the balance of trade. It will create many “green” jobs, from installing weather-stripping to high-level research positions and distributed ownership of energy generation systems. It will improve states’ self-determination.

This energy smorgasbord will use the same mechanisms of federal assistance previously provided to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries. However, the new energy policy must powerfully override these industries’ vested interests when they do not demonstrate long- and short-term financial and environmental benefits.

Though we have vast coal reserves, coal-burning generating plants are unacceptable sources of carbon dioxide. In northwest New Mexico, activists are battling to prevent another coal-burning plant, which would provide electricity to several states, while benefiting its investors, and providing some local jobs. However, it would offset all other efforts in the state to reduce carbon emissions. How can the U.S. influence China to reduce its use of coal-generated energy if the U.S. does not curtail its own? While “clean coal” has become a buzzword, large-scale carbon sequestration projects have not been successfully tested and present major safety and liability issues. In the short-term, “clean” coal does not exist and dirty coal continues to cook the planet.

Let’s consider nuclear power, which can create immense amounts of power from one location without greenhouse gases. But there are huge risks, including the health of uranium miners, and dangers to communities from radioactive mine tailings may contaminate water supplies. Shall we blithely create risk to future generations from nuclear waste that must be transported and stored with passionate caution for tens of thousands of years? There is also the risk of highly visible terrorism targets and the potential for a meltdown. Nuclear power’s financial benefits accrue largely to utilities and nuclear plant builders, such as GE. After construction, few employees benefit. Plus, these plants are expensive (say $10 billion apiece) and construction should not be rushed. Nuclear power has undeniable liabilities, and is neither an immediate nor inexpensive solution.

On the other hand, wind and solar power are finally economically feasible, have no carbon emissions, and few environmental risks compared to nuclear. They can create widespread ownership of power generation. These industries’ primary problem is lack of capital and political clout, which they need to ramp up more quickly. Otherwise, their viability and safety have now been established. They also have the potential to create large numbers of jobs.

Research on biofuels now reveals the potential of non-food feedstocks for creation of ethanol with easy-to-grow non-food “crops” such as algae and switchgrass. These biofuels can be ramped up even more quickly, with only minor environmental impacts, and can also create jobs nationwide in the fuels’ growing and processing. By blending biofuels with gasoline in current vehicles, dependence on foreign fossil fuels can be reduced, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The combination of rapid ramp-up and minimal environmental consequence should make biofuels a high national energy priority.

The question of offshore oil drilling’s potential, perhaps the most controversial of current energy options, has been manipulated to present it as a viable short term option. Permitting and construction of new oil platforms requires years and safety precautions should not be circumvented. Although political opposition to offshore drilling has softened, that does not make it a short term solution, nor would offshore oil development reduce green house gases. Finally, oil spills and accidents do happen with impacts on beaches, tourism, fishing and wildlife habitat. The damage to local and regional economies can be immense, while the number of jobs created by offshore oil drilling is low.

The greatest area of short term energy “creation” is energy conservation. It is the easiest to implement, and with incentives from state and federal government, could create a huge number of jobs rapidly. Fully 50 percent of U.S. energy use is in buildings. Every building in the U.S. should be weatherized. It would revitalize the construction trades, increase real estate values, and could dramatically reduce our use of heating oil and natural gas. It’s the smartest, safest and fastest way to address our energy crisis while new technologies and other solutions are implemented.

Though the two presidential candidates’ energy policies include many of these components, they’re both offering false hope with regard to “clean” coal, and McCain’s emphasis on nuclear power benefits nuclear power companies at the expense of future generations. And offshore oil drilling? As long as it’s a state’s decision, I think Californians will make wiser decisions than the federal government.

Backing Away from Big Oil

They say the human species’ great natural advantage is the ability to adapt. I’ve decided to adapt and tell Big Oil where it can go.

I’ve committed to implementing a seven-year plan toward independence from single occupancy of gasoline-fueled vehicles. It’s very simple: I will start this year by arranging my life so that one day a week, I do not drive a conventional car by myself. Next year, it will be two days a week. The following year, three days a week, and so on.

I’ve experimented with “green” lifestyle for decades. But the car thing has been difficult as I haven’t had the bucks to buy a hybrid car. And relying solely on public transportation is only realistically possible in a few select cities in the U.S.

Part of my motivation in implementing this plan is to do my part to slow global warming. But a much larger part is because I am so angry at Congress, Detroit and the oil companies for failing to make steady progress on the CAFÉ standards for fuel efficiency. A person doesn’t have to be a genius to understand that fossil fuel resources are finite. The fact that oil production would one day peak has been known since the 50s.

And now the public is whining about high gas prices. I am sympathetic to all the unfortunate homeowners who bought the American Dream in the form of big houses in the ‘burbs, and SUVs for commuting. I’m sympathetic because their leaders should have provided more leadership. Political leadership has again proven to be an oxymoron.

Europeans have been paying a great deal more for gas for decades. They don’t subsidize oil companies. Instead they subsidize health care, education and public transportation. Do I think the American public could endorse similar policies? Only if it gets over its sense of entitlement that because we’ve long squandered a disproportionate share of the world’s resources, we should be able to continue to do so indefinitely. World population has doubled in the past fifty years. It seems like the smart thing to do is share resources, not fight over them.

But without a practical plan, my anger is only hard on me. This simple plan provides a manageable way to harness that energy. In year one, all I have to do is rearrange my schedule so that one day a week, I don’t drive. (By my rules, it doesn’t have to be the same day each week.) That gives me a whole year to figure out how I’m going to manage to stay out of the car two days a week next year. In the meantime, I’ll start testing the bus system.

A year is also long enough to build the strength and confidence to ride my bike more often. Bike riding requires a different wardrobe and carrying less stuff around. But in a year, I should be able to eliminate stashes of makeup, pens and excessive paperwork. I’ll find a lightweight notebook computer. I can learn to coordinate the bike and bus routines. It looks cool to see people ride to a bus stop, plunk the bike on the rack in front and then climb in the bus. Soon I’ll be one of them.

Another thing that can happen in a year is to figure out what errands to eliminate. Maybe I’ll buy a little photocopy machine ending trips to the copy shop. Maybe I’ll start buying postage online and have the post man pick up packages, as the post office now advertises. I could plan two weeks of meals at a time and go food shopping half as often and coordinate with a friend to shop together, or carpool to meetings.

If need be, seven years is long enough to plan and implement major life changes—such as a change in occupation or residence—to become less reliant on cars. It’s also long enough to save money to purchase a different kind of vehicle. If I can’t afford a new hybrid or electric within seven years, there should be more used ones available.

They say that within a seven year period, every cell in the body has been renewed and we each are, essentially, a totally new person. Since, in the end, I am the only person I can change, I commit to becoming a different transportation consumer in that time. Habits may be difficult to change. But changing them is not impossible. I’ll be blogging about this personal evolution here and welcome your input on how to plop that bike smoothly on the bus bike rack.

> COMMENT ON THIS POST