In the next 50 years, give or take, those of us in the United States
will face two challenges. We must wean ourselves off of oil and we must
cut our carbon-dioxide emissions by around 60 percent. Either would be
difficult in isolation; together, well ... imagine patting your head and
rubbing your belly at the same time, only with trillions of dollars and
millions of lives at stake. And with one arm tied behind your back.
What's the best way to meet these challenges? If you were the proverbial
Martian, visiting our planet to dispassionately assess our options, what
would you find most promising?
Would it be nuclear power? "Clean coal"? Ethanol? You'd only decide on
those options if you happen to be an uncommonly gullible Martian (or one
in the pay of big industry--but more on that later).
Substantially increasing the amount of electricity we get from nuclear
power would mean building dozens of expensive new plants, none of which
would be completed for at least 10 years. Each would be a huge risk for
investors and virtually uninsurable without government assistance--and
once it had run its course, would cost a fortune to decommission. Each
would produce tons of waste--when we don't even know what to do with
the waste we already have--and each would produce fissile material that
could fall into the wrong hands. By some estimates, the CO2 emitted in
the full lifecycle of a nuclear plant--taking into account the oil
burned mining, transporting and processing uranium, not to mention
constructing the plants themselves--would be only a third less than that
released by a coal-fired plant.
Burning coal releases CO2. To avoid climate catastrophe, "clean coal"
plants would have to sequester their CO2 emissions underground. This
technology is speculative, untested and at least 10 years out.
Corn-based ethanol is the result of an extremely energy-intensive,
CO2-emitting, polluting process. Corn is grown in massive monocultures
with petroleum-based herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, which are
busy accumulating in an enormous "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.
Ethanol refining plants consume enormous amounts of natural gas or coal;
their product is distributed across the country in oil-burning vehicles.
In the end, grain-based ethanol produces little more energy than what's
required to make it, and does virtually nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
What about cellulosic ethanol, the oft-cited, eco-friendlier cousin of
grain-based ethanol? Well, it's--wait for it--largely speculative,
untested and at least 10 years out.
Would a smart Martian choose these uneconomical and/or inefficient
and/or unproven fuel sources as its primary means of addressing
America's immediate energy challenges? Would he be willing to wait 10
years to ramp up supply, in a quixotic attempt to keep up with
burgeoning demand? Not unless he'd been paid off by big energy
companies. (Which, let's face it, would inevitably happen.)
Our Martian would probably suggest we focus first on reducing our energy
use--and might be delighted to discover several simple, at-hand ways to
do so. Some low-hanging fruit: boost energy efficiency standards for
cars, appliances, industrial equipment and buildings. Institute
"feebates," which would tax the purchase of fuel-inefficient vehicles
and apply the revenue to rebates on fuel-efficient vehicles. Mandate
that all government purchases--of vehicles, buildings, appliances, or
anything else--be tied to strict energy-efficiency requirements. Pass a
federal renewable portfolio standard, mandating that the feds get a
certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources.
And if our Martian wanted to get a little bit more ambitious, he might
emphasize these broader policy and technological initiatives:
. Impose a gas or carbon tax. It would put uniform pressure on the
market to reduce oil consumption, without favoring any particular
alternative. (The impact on low-income Americans could be offset with
reduced payroll taxes.)
. Encourage density by reversing land-use policies at all levels of
government that subsidize road-building and sprawl at the expense of
compact, walkable, mixed-use communities served by effective public
transportation.
. Drop perverse agricultural subsidies that overwhelmingly favor
petro-heavy industrial agriculture and long-distance food transport at
the expense of organic farms and local food systems.
. Scrap electricity-market regulations that virtually mandate
centralized power production at large, inefficient plants (by some
estimates, up to two-thirds of energy is wasted en route to end users);
instead, encourage decentralized production from small-scale,
site-appropriate sources.
Given the panoply of readily available demand-reduction measures, our
befuddled Martian might wonder, why is debate over America's energy
future dominated by supply-side options like nuclear, "clean coal," and
ethanol? If he hung out for a while and studied the socio-economic
scene, our Martian might propose the following explanations:
. Policymakers are terrified to tell constituents that big upheavals are
coming and big changes are needed. They prefer to propagate the illusion
that one set of fuels can simply be swapped out for another, with no
disturbance in the hyperconsuming, big-box retailing, suburb-expanding
American way of life.
. Many of the most effective energy strategies would mean less
fossil-fuel power and more people power--i.e., labor. Site-situated
power plants and small organic farms, for instance, require more human
labor than their centralized, mechanized, super-sized counterparts. The
economic consensus of the American power elites (in both parties) has it
that labor costs must be held to a minimum by any means
necessary--union-busting, federal rate hikes, outsourcing, or liberal
use of illegal immigrants.
. Finally and most significantly: it's the money, stupid. Scratch the
surface of each of the elite's favored alternatives and you'll find an
industry with political connections and the financial clout to shape
public dialogue. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry front group,
has openly established an organization designed to push
<http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/> pro-nuclear talking points into the
public sphere--it's already paid off in the form of an influential op-ed
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html> in
The Washington Post . Ethanol has even more friends. Legislators from
agricultural states love it; corn brokers like Archer Daniels Midland
love it; automakers who want their products to look greener love it; the
oil companies that will eventually own and run ethanol refineries and
stations love it. And coal--well, even kids
<http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/4/17/94352/7251> love coal!
Alternative fuels backed by big industry bucks aren't necessarily
without merit. But those concerned about America's--and the
world's--energy future need not accept the debate as it is currently
configured, with its skewed focus on supply increase over demand
reduction and big-industry products over decentralized, human-scale
solutions.
Public dialogue is influenced by big money, but it is also, at least for
now, influenced by the public. And we, the public, should approach the
energy problem with fresh, unbiased eyes.
Like Martians.
[permaculture] The Alt Fuels Distraction,
Saor Stetler, 05/26/2006