December 29, 2003
An Energy Policy for the Future
[Ed: This article was first published for Vox Populi Nebraska in October and is the fourth in my series on the environment. Earlier articles can be found here: I, II, and III.]
Bush’s and Cheney’s energy policies are indicative of the administration’s lack of vision and stodgy reliance on old, wasteful and expensive energy production techniques. These policies not only demonstrate the ways this administration is enthralled to the energy dinosaurs, but also show their total disregard for the environment. But this should not be too surprising: after all, both Bush and Cheney are products of the oil business and Cheney has stated that he believes there is no place in public policy for conservation.
These policies also tie together the worst and most damaging aspects of the Bush administration:
- Taking the country to war in Iraq in part to get control of the lucrative oil reserves and put them under US control.
- Damaging the environment by:
- encouraging profligate use of energy
- promoting pollution
- removing enormous tracks of land from federal protection and allowing mining and drilling companies to extract resources with minimal concern to the impact on the environment
- Enriching their friends at the expense of the citizens. Halliburton is definitely a winner in Bush’s world and we know that they are very well-connected indeed.
Allowing the Bush administration to direct our national energy policy is hurting our future and costing us too much. We must make sure our representatives understand this and that they stand up for us and our future until we have some better leaders in the White House.
Nevertheless, there is one aspect of hope and optimism in these times: many people believe that designing a new energy policy can address all of the above problems and also be the basis of an exciting new focus for the country. Just like the drive in the 1960s to put a man on the moon led to enormous technological advances from which we are still reaping the benefits, a drive to true energy independence can also provide a brighter future for us, our children and the rest of the world. And several of the Democratic candidates "get this".
How can this be? Haven’t Bush and Cheney convinced us that the only possible way to produce the energy we need to run our economy is by drilling more and by building huge, power plants (both coal and nuclear) and by designing a huge centralized, faux market-driven grid? Perhaps this is because they are stuck in the 60s themselves and lack imagination? Or, perhaps it’s due to their mistaking their own self-interest as the national interest since there is lots of money to be made from today’s energy industry and they are prime beneficiaries? Whatever it is, they really are missing one of the best stories that came out of the last quarter century.
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) [1], in 1975, the government and the energy industry predicted that by the year 2000 we would need around 160 quadrillion BTUs per year, based on their projections of energy usage from that time. So, it comes as quite a surprise to see that even though the economy and the population of the country grew, the actual usage in 2000 was under 100 quadrillion BTUs. [2] One reason was the OPEC oil shock which made business as usual no longer viable and resulted in the promotion of the energy efficiencies in a number of areas. In fact, there had been a 35% drop in energy usage per GDP dollar since 1973. And the ability to use energy more efficiently is just getting started – there are lots more savings to be found, if we just decide that this is the right goal.
RMI has been at the forefront of wise energy use from the early 70s and has promoted new ways of thinking about energy that goes beyond stating we need to significantly scale back our expectations in order to gain energy independence. Some of their more interesting insights are:
- It is not energy that the economy needs, but rather the services that energy provides (hot showers, mobility, comfortable buildings, etc). This means that if we can get the services for less energy, our society is actually richer (rather than poorer).
- Higher efficiency can pay back in more than just energy costs. For energy efficient buildings, the value from things such as the superior acoustical and thermal comfort for people are not easily quantifiable, yet provide significant benefits beyond the energy savings.
- Today, the reliance of competing interests to come up with designs for buildings or machines leads to poorly designed and poorly meshed systems. For example, consider the interests of those involved when building a new building. Some of the stakeholders are the owner who doesn’t really have a reason to provide any efficiency goals, the designer who isn’t thinking about the end operating efficiency unless it is part of the codes, the contractor who looks for the most inexpensive materials and the tenant/user who pays for the ongoing energy costs. Each of them maximizing for their own interest produces at best a poor system. Using whole-system design techniques (using a holistic perspective with energy efficiency as a primary goal) can lead to outstanding improvements in energy efficiency and some beautiful, yet extremely useful buildings and/or systems.
RMI shows that we don’t have to make a trade-off between protecting the environment and having an economy that runs on energy. In fact, they say that we could meet our Kyoto energy goals by simply doing some of the same things California did before their disastrous encounter with the unregulated (and highly colluded) energy market. But they think that we can and should do much, much more. They propose:
"Technological research and development must therefore be supplemented by improved design education, re-treading of practicing design professionals, and greater attention to energy anthropology – the emerging science of why people use energy the way they do." [3]
RMI has been a key player in promoting the hyper-car, of which we are seeing only the first promise in the new hybrid-cars such as Toyota’s Prius or Honda’s Insight and now the new hybrid Civic. Moreover, RMI thinks we are on the verge of moving to the ultimate clean energy source: hydrogen. They believe the hyper-car will eventually be fueled by hydrogen which when not in use, will provide electricity to run your household needs.
Getting beyond our current energy policy battles while providing enough energy for the whole world without destroying our environment is an exciting and truly positive vision. A new energy policy which makes us independent of the middle-East could also provide not only us but also Iraq a brighter future, one based on maximizing our human capital, and not simply using resources underground.
Footnotes:
[1] Rocky Mountain Institute is an organization that was founded to promote: the efficient and restorative use of natural, human and other capital to make the world more secure, just, prosperous, and life sustaining. Please visit RMI's Website to find out more about them.
[2] Energy Surprises for the 21st Century, Journal of International Affairs, Fall 1999, 53, no 1, page 1.
[3] Ibid, page 7.