Since we presented our second draft of a proposed energy policy (
Reenergize America - A Democratic Blueprint (Second Draft)), there's been a lull on the topic. We are currently thinking about the next steps, and will come back to the community for more discussion, but the topic should not disappear from your minds in the meantime.
I know that with the Libby indictment and the Alito nomination there's a lot to follow these days, but energy is an issue that is not going to disappear, and which needs to be tackled as soon as possible, and kept in the headlines as much as possible, as it is one of the most glaring failures (and there are many) of the Bush administration.
But the smart conservatives are also thinking about the issue, and are making serious efforts to come up with workable policies. I comment below on one of the more recent efforts, from the Committee on the Present Danger, which makes a compelling argument.
Despite the token presence of Lieberman among them, the CPD is the meeting place for a surprisingly high number of
prominent conservatives, neocons, and reaganites, and the
policy paper I will now discuss is signed by George Schultz (Reagan's long serving Secretary of State) and James Woosley (former director of the CIA).
UPDATE - A reader has kindly emailed me a link to a slightly shorter text version: the petroleum bomb.
They start with some very basic but fundamental insights, which should inform any energy policy:
- The transportation infrastructure is committed to oil and oil-compatible products;
- an increasing portion of the oil will come from the Middle East. Furthermore, as the cheapest producers, they will always have the option of bringing oil prices low enough to ruin alternative oil producers (an option they used in the 80s);
- the oil infrastructure is highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The first point is one we have only touched briefly in our own proposals, but it is the elephant in the room: our development in the past 50 years, and in particular in the last 20, was based on cheap oil, makes extensive use of that oil, and leaves us with an enduring legacy, such as McMansions, faraway exurbs and bedroom communities, and a general lack of alternatives to the car for transportation in most places. Any viable policy today should obviously strive to change this over the long term, but must be compatible with today's infrastructure.
The second point means that alternative sources of supply will be hard to be counted upon, as they will remain risky financial ventures for the foreseeable future. This may be disputed, but the oil industry today still agrees with that, and is extremely reluctant to base investment decisions on oil prices above certain "reasonable" levels (in the 25-30$/bl range) as they consider that either (i) any revenues coming from prices above these levels will be taxed away (true in many producing countries today), or (ii) OPEC retains the capacity to get prices below that level and thus investments in more expensive oils could turn out to be unprofitable.
The authors also note, rightly, that, even if we have not yet reached peak oil (which they mention explicitly as such), mere demand growth from China and India ensures that supplies will remain tight, and thus that the West will remain highly dependent on the Middle East suppliers and the political vagaries of this unstable region (as well as that of other exporters like Venezuela, Nigieria and Russia).
The third point is a logical one for a think tank whose motto is "fighting terrorism and the ideologies that drive it" but is very relevant in the above context. The authors remind us of the vulnerability of the industry, and note that an attack on some strategic facilities would have the same effect than a political decision such as an embargo.
Their wise conclusion is not that we should drill in Alaska, but that we should burn less oil, or replace it with more reliable (politically speaking) alternatives. This is important: they are arguing for demand-side policies. If the right manages to capture that side of the argument, the Democrats are going to be in a lot of trouble to formulate a decent energy policy.
Furthermore, in their list of arguments for reform, they also make the following two points, which again threaten potential Democrat arguments:
- oil imports are equivalent to half of the current account deficit of the USA. They chip away the strnegth of the dollar, and put upwards pressure on interest rates (as the USA have to borrow that money, currently from Asian countries);
- oil use contributes significantly to global warming, which they acknowledge to be both real and a serious danger.
Their policy proposals, again, make a lot of sense, and do not sidestep the issues associated with each proposal:
- biofuels and cellulose-based fuels is their first proposal for a homegrown substitute. They respond to the arguments that these are not an energy efficient process (it uses more energy than it produces) and that it would require too much land in order to provide significant volumes of fuel. I cannot comment on their arguments (and would appreciate help there), but their willingness to address these important issues is a strong signal;
- diesel and hybrids should be encouraged. They already exist (made in Europe or in Japan, respectively), they are significantly more fuel effective than the existing US vehicle fleet, and would provide significant savings. They can even be "sold" to the public as "hotter" as their performances are often better than the equivalent gasoline vehicle.
- the next step is plug-in hybrids, i.e. hybrids with larger batteries that can be recharged at home during the night and used for the first 20-30 miles each day. Using available (and cheap) power production capacity, this could save massive volumes of gasoline. Note that devilstower has long been a proponent of this solution as well...
Altogether, this is a very serious attempt at proposing policy measures that acknowledge the "facts on the ground" and that would work
today to lower gasoline consumption in the USA, and reduce oil imports.
And this is proposed by heavy-weights.
I cannot emphasise again how important it is that Democrats come up with policy proposals that make similar sense, and with the political firepower to be heard and to capture the full credit from such policies.
As we noted in Meteor Blade's diary, Harry Reid has some proposals on his site, Joe Lieberman has proposed an ambitious energy plan, and Governor Schweitzer has been pushing coal-to-liquids technology. Barack Obama has also recently introduced a bill (S. 1920 Renewable Diesel Standard Act of 2005) to encourage the use of ethanol-based diesel. All these efforts need to be tied together, and presented as a coherent Democrat plan.
It is vital to capture this political ground to have a chance to implement smart policies in the near future. Please.
UPDATE - Please also read and keep recommending OrangeClouds's diary on many smart ways to save energy right now.