Energy chief says nation faces crisis

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E76344,00.html

Energy chief says nation faces crisis

By Bill McAllister

Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief

Thursday, July 26, 2001 - WASHINGTON - Striking out at Bush administration critics, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham appealed to the public Wednesday to "stop kidding ourselves" over the nation's energy crisis.

Energy prices may have dipped, the secretary acknowledged, but the crisis remains very real.

Prices will continue on their roller-coaster path, he predicted.

"But for us, each day, each new spring, the situation gets a little worse across the board," the secretary warned in a speech to the National Press Club. "... If we don't act to change this scenario, we will confront higher prices, supply shortages and infrastructure failure year-round."

The former Michigan senator ridiculed opponents of the president's plan, saying they have closed their eyes to the nation's dependence on foreign oil and its failure to build new electric generating facilities.

That philosophy is not just the old "NIMBY" - not in my backyard - approach, the secretary said. It is "BANANA" - "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone," Abraham said.

However, Alyssondra Campaigne, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, later accused the administration of trying to worry Americans.

"They have been trying to create a crisis in order to push proposals that benefit the oil, nuclear and automobile industries instead of consumers," she said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

-- (real@or.hype), July 26, 2001

Answers

Well Allyssondra, Those industries depend on us consumers. Whatever benenfits them benefits us. We depend on energy and transportation. DUH.

-- John Littmann (johntl@mtn.org), July 26, 2001.

What kind of genius does it take to compare life in an energy poor nation verses an energy rich one and wonder which is better for its citizens?

Before the "fair share" crowd starts in let 'em name a nation in poverty that wouldn't trade places with us and then do exactly what we're doing.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), July 27, 2001.


I thought a "banana" was a recession.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), July 27, 2001.

"If we don't act to change this scenario, we will confront higher prices, supply shortages and infrastructure failure year-round...."

Yes, but....

The Cheney plan completely dismisses the most promising way to "change this scenario". It is conservation. All conservation amounts to is investing in efficiency rather than investing in new production. We don't even need to develop a single new technology to get major increases in efficiency.

Think about this: the USA uses about far more energy per unit of GDP than the EU or Japan - our main competitors. I don't have the stats, but it is a huge difference - my memory tells me it is on the order of 40% more energy wasted by the US to get the same exact results.

It is reasonable to assume that by investing in energy efficiency, the USA could increase its GDP 4% a year for a couple of decades without increasing energy consumption at all - just by getting as efficient as our competitors are TODAY.

Even though the Bush administration seems pig-headedly determined to ignore conservation and equally determined to encourage a future with more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and more oil spills, here is the good news: you don't have to wait for government leadership in order to conserve energy!

- You can buy compact flourescent bulbs that fit in your existing fixtures but use 1/3 the energy.

- You can replace old appliances (such as your refrigerator and water heater) with the most energy efficient modern appliances - and they will repay your investment halfway through their life cycle at present electricity costs. If costs go up, they repay you even sooner.

- You can buy the most fuel-efficient and manitenance-free vehicle that suits your needs and then drive it into the ground before you replace it.

And the beauty of this is it is a great investment. It saves money. It makes excellent financial sense in the very same way that socking money away in a savings instrument makes sense. It is a big win all the way around.

Except it doesn't put a dime into the pockets of oil or utility companies. Such a shame. Such a crying shame.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 27, 2001.


Correction:

I said: "It is reasonable to assume that by investing in energy efficiency, the USA could increase its GDP 4% a year for a couple of decades without increasing energy consumption at all - just by getting as efficient as our competitors are TODAY."

I was wrong. That math won't wash. I was overstating my case. Sorry.

What I should have said was that we can grow that fast just by staying 3 years or so behind the efficiency achieved by our competitors. We're already so far behind them it would take us a decade just to get where they are now. By then, they will have forged ahead, too, and we'll still be playing catch up.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 27, 2001.



LN, your average Joe is not about to conserve squat. You can't expect people to put out major bucks that they don't have, simply to save a few dollars (and in some cases merely cents) in their electric bills. It won't happen. How many people have bought used tires to use in building their homes the way the actor Weaver(?) did? Answer: zero. I admire your effort, though.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 2001.

"You can't expect people to put out major bucks that they don't have, simply to save a few dollars (and in some cases merely cents) in their electric bills."

If you look at total life-cycle costs, they are cheaper. While the poor won't necessarily have the upfront money, the middle class and wealthy surely do. You don't have to have universal compliance to reap the rewards, either. Also, during the oil crises of the 70s one hell of a lot of average Joes ponied up to buy more efficiency, because the money was flowing out one way or another and efficiency brought the bigger return.

My biggest beef with the Cheney plan is that it doesn't even try to spell out the real costs - in damage to the airsheds, watersheds and lost opportunity - that it trades away in return for cheaper costs at the nozzle or electric meter. Such ignorance is costly. All Esau got for his ignorance was a mess of pottage.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 27, 2001.


It's a good argument Nipper but Maria's point goes to the heart of the whole energy, pollution, global warming dilemma. While conservation will never get a bad rap it's really a dead end.

The forces pushing catastrophe reside within us just as they do in a mouse. The difference is that feast or famine in mouse world can't change the world. We have the power to change the world but we still have the reproductive instincts of a mouse.

This really does apply to energy---honest. It's a bell curve kind of thing. Once a society achieves its worldy goods goal it breaks from the mouse's reproductive imperative. Norway, I belive, has a birthrate equating to a 1.4% reduction in population each year. The "good" times. Problem is that they're at the head of the curve and the building tidal wave behind them just ain't gonna put up with conservation.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), July 27, 2001.


"Once a society achieves its worldy goods goal it breaks from the mouse's reproductive imperative."

I agree with much of what you said, but disagree with your conclusion that conservation is a dead end.

First, your example of Norway having reached "its worldly goods goal" is fine. As it happens, Norway also conserves much better than the USA does, and achieves this goal without conspicuous waste of resources. Conservation does not automatically mean sacrifice or a lowered standard of living. It means efficiency at achieving one's goals.

Second, Norway's standard of living is not conspicuously higher than the average in the USA. Many in the American middle class would look at Norway's gas prices, food prices, taxes and so forth and conclude that their standard is lower than ours. And yet, if the lowered birth rate indicates contentment with their standard of living, then they are measurably more content than ourselves. Why? Obviously, such contentment is not strictly a product of energy use. So, lowering one's energy use should not impair one's happiness.

I do agree that, eventually, humans seem destined to occupy every habitable space on the planet - until some insuperable obstacle is met. But what is the rush? Maybe by conserving and developing a conservation ethic, we can delay that outcome for centuries. Seems worthwhile to me.

Lastly, socities appear to develop their ethics based on the need to survive. The pressures on our own society to abandon our ethic of infinite growth are building, and in Europe they have been gathering force even faster. The same pressures will someday bring us back into some kind of balance with nature. It is unduly rigid thinking to believe we cannot change. Sexual impulses are strong. Culture has always sought and found weapons that are effective at channeling that impulse into less dangerous channels. It can happen again.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 28, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ