In 1973, when OPEC imposed its oil embargo, U.S. oil imports composed 30 percent of our needs; today, they make up more than 60 percent, with a growing proportion of that crude coming from the world's least stable regions. At around $145 a barrel, the United States, by my calculations, will spend more on imported oil this year than it will spend on its own defense budget, and much of that money will flow into the coffers of those who wish us ill.
Okay, we know all that, don't we? So why I am writing about Gal Luft's Washington Post piece Iran and Brazil Can Do It. So Can We.? Look at the two countries in that title. Both are in the midst of lots of oil. Israel is near oil-rich but hostile nations. Iran produces lots of oil but has no meaningful refining capacity. And both are moving away from gasoline as the primary means of powering transportation. How they and other countries are doing it is certainly worth our exploration.
I am not an energy expert, but the article offers enough information about different approaches that it should be worth our attention. And I acknowledge that the directions each of the nations discussed is going is not necessarily an ideal solution for the United State.
For example, Brazil has gone in the direction of producing sugar for ethanol, and now 90% of vehicles sold in Brazil be flex-fueled and hence capable of running on any mix of ethanol and gasoline (and the largest producer of these is GM!). As a result they have been able to hold their price for the fuel for motor vehicles steady as the world price of petroleum has skyrocketed. But we lack the climate necessary for such large-scale sugar production. And what Brazil has done has had a serious environmental cost for the rest of the world. The land used for sugar production had previously been used for grazing, and that use has been displaced into what had been rain forest. Thus one can argue that the transition to sugar cane for ethanol, combined with the increasing consumption of beef for both domestic and export purposes, has led to a serious reduction of the lungs of the world, the rain forest of the Amazon Basin, and that has serious implications for the entire world.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not my favorite person. But the president of Iran recognizes how vulnerable to an embargo his country is because of its lack of refining capacity - it is heavily dependent upon importation of gasoline. So Ahmadinejad is moving the country to use of natural gas, abundant in Iran, as the primary fuel for motor vehicles, has mandated that domestic car makers produce vehicles that are dual-fuel, able to rn on gasoline and natural gas, and hopes to complete the conversion in 3-4 years and thus be no longer vulnerable to gasoline boycotts. For a subsidized $50 fee you can bring in your car and get it back several hours later, converted to run on natural gas.
Here I feel it necessary to make a digression. People have posited that one reason the U. S. invaded Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was going to move his nation;s pricing of petroleum from dollars to euros: that would have a serious impact on the value of the dollar, particularly if other nations followed that example. One has to wonder if a subtext to our concern about Ahmadinejad is that the actions he is taking would reduce our ability to play big-power politics and pressure his nation, so that the administration is seeking to act now, while we still have leverage.
I have cited two of the nations in the article. Both are examples of a major national commitment which might not seem possible here. Perhaps not. And yet, as Luft tells us before writing about either of the countries whose efforts I have just described, we have seen our capability of making a similar significant change:
Is energy independence a pipe dream? Hardly. In the electricity sector, the mission has already been accomplished. Remember President Jimmy Carter in his cardigan during the oil crises of the 1970s, urging Americans to save electricity? It took us just one decade to wean the electricity sector from oil. Today, only 2 percent of U.S. electricity comes from oil, according to the Energy Department. Could we do something similar with transportation, where American cars and trucks still gulp oil-based fuel greedily? At least four very different countries -- dictatorships and democracies alike -- are already making serious headway toward that goal. It's past time to pay attention to their example.
Of course, our reducing our use of petroleum for the production of electricity at a time of increasing demand for that power has meant increased use particularly of coal, and that has had serious implications, from air pollution to mountain-top removal, that we have not fully addressed. Our unwillingness since Three Mile Island to build additional nuclear power plants has meant we have had little choice but to turn to coal, so Luft's example is, like those of the four nations, not something without additional costs.
The other two nations Luft cites are China and Israel. The former is making using of methanol, which
an be made from natural gas, coal, industrial garbage and even recycled carbon dioxide captured from power stations' smokestacks -- an elegant way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
China is building flex-fuel vehicles which can use methanol, but of course methanol offers less energy per unit than does ethanol. And meanwhile, which Luft does not mention, China is increasing its use of coal for electrical generation, which adds to the the carbon load on the entire planet.
As for Israelis, they are making a serious effort to become an oil-free country. Let me quote:
Israelis will soon be able to replace their gasoline-fueled cars with battery-operated ones, which they'll plug into the hundreds of thousands of recharging points planned to be erected throughout the country. Israeli motorists, the government hopes, will be able to swap their batteries in a matter of minutes at dedicated stations or recharge them at home or at work. "Oil is the greatest problem of all time -- the great polluter and promoter of terror," said Israeli President Shimon Peres, the project's political patron. "We should get rid of it."
We currently have a 54 a cent gallon tax on importing Brazilian ethanol. That protects our US ethanol producers. Luft notes we have NO import tax on foreign petroleum.
Luft argues that we cannot solve our problems merely with smaller vehicles and and more domestic drilling, whether in ANWR or off the coast - that still keeps us committed to a petroleum based transportation system at a time when we can anticipate an additional 16 million vehicles each year.
There are problems in getting the US to go down the path Luft urges us to explore. And I will offer the final paragraph of the article to show what that is. We currently have billions invested in our current petroleum-based transportation system: think of all the individual gas stations, for example, and the companies who operate tank trunks that can carry liquids, and the pipelines, and the refineries. It would take a major effort to begin to move in a different direction. But if we do not, we will remain vulnerable to disruptions, and our economy can suffer dramatically as shortfalls or price increases have major impact on our daily lives. What we are seeing now with $4.00+ gasoline cause by a combination of factors is small potatoes compared to what we could be facing.
So now, let me offer Luft's final paragraph:
So let's remember the old saying: When in a hole, stop digging. If every new car sold in the United States were a flex-fuel vehicle and if millions of Americans could plug in their electric cars, gasoline would be facing fierce competition at the pump and the socket. Moreover, our money would have migrated from Exxon to Pepco, from the Middle East to the Midwest -- as well as to scores of poor, biomass-producing countries in Africa, Latin America and South Asia, including the few countries that don't yet hate our guts. This, and no other, is the road to independence.
Can we move in the direction of some sort of energy independence? Should we? Should we at least not have a more complete discussion of the alternatives?
Peace.