GBN Blog
My Point of View
The unofficial energy policy of the United States for most of the last fifty years has been to maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people that hate us the most. This perverse reality was not the intended result of energy policy. Rather it was—and is—the result of many policy choices, only a few of which are directly related to energy at all. The debate today over energy, climate change, and security is particularly misleading because it fails to recognize the reality of the American energy situation. Let me explain what I mean.
The policies that have had the greatest impact on energy demand are not about energy per se, but are social, economic, housing, transportation, and land use policies intended to make the average American a wealthy suburban home owner. Let’s be clear—every country in the world is trying to make its people richer. In the US, however, we’re particularly thoughtless about the consequences of our economic development for energy consumption, which has led to one of the highest per capita energy consumption rates in the world. We spread our people all over the landscape because land was cheap and abundant, causing many to drive long distances for work, school, and fun. We use our technological advances to boost performance and make devices bigger and more feature-laden at the expense of efficiency. The hybrid Lexus is a good example.
On the supply side, since the early seventies we have been much more adept at blocking new energy supplies than at developing them. The list of energy sources we don’t like has grown progressively longer. It began with nuclear power, followed by offshore and Arctic oil and liquid natural gas (LNG) ports. Then came coal mines and power plants, and now we don’t even like big wind turbines that kill birds and block views. Some of us also object to big solar developments that cover precious desert landscapes or the power lines required to bring renewable energy to the cities. No wonder that we have continued to import more oil from the Middle East, South America, and Africa.
We have also dramatically expanded our use of natural gas for electricity production. So despite substantial increases in renewable energy, our electricity systems today are more carbon intensive then they were 30 years ago. And if we do not start building more nuclear plants, these systems will become even more carbon intensive. Fortunately we had a positive supply surprise in this country with shale gas—a domestic natural gas with roughly half the emissions of coal. It has allowed us to push LNG imports further into the future and slow the pace of coal development.
We have also not taken into account the speed and magnitude of climate change and its potential consequences. Nor have we been realistic about how long it takes to change energy infrastructure. As a result, the energy and climate measures now before Congress are very far from achieving the desired impact. It is quite possible that we may not see a climate and energy bill at all next year as other economic priorities come first, i.e., jobs. So the likely future is more of the same. That in turn means that the global negotiations on reducing the likelihood of catastrophic climate change are probably headed for failure as well. Without strong participation by the US, the other key actors have little incentive to move. Since the US administration is ahead of American public attitudes on climate change and the Senate is fairly conservative, it is difficult to imagine any treaty being ratified.
All of these interconnected factors are playing out at a global level and have an enormous momentum behind them. And the forces needed to deflect them towards a more sustainable and secure path are fairly weak…so far. But a variety of developments—from climatic disruptions to economic transformations to technology breakthroughs and even political leadership—could introduce powerful new forces and shift the nature of the debate and the potential for action.
In the weeks ahead I will be expanding on these observations and commenting on a number of issues related to energy, politics, technology and the environment. For more detail on my opening observations about demand and supply, please see the “Core Ideas” section accessible on this web site. I look forward to reading and responding to your comments as well.
5 Responses to “My Point of View”
Leave a Reply
Peter Schwartz
GBN cofounder and chairman. An internationally renowned futurist and business strategist, Peter previously headed scenario planning for Royal Dutch/Shell and directed the Strategic Environment Center at SRI International.
Read more.
Peter – any chance of getting the GBN information plumbers to put your Blog on an RSS feed?
I love listening to your insights and would hate to miss one!
I’m heavily into IFF stuff on Horizon 3 energy myself in my own small way (on the technology side as you would expect) .
You clearly have a great grip on the power structures and deeper drivers of our civilization’s K to Omega transition!
This article is certainly the best on this worthy topic. I concur with your thoughts and will earnestly look forward to your future updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the fantastic clarity in your writing. I will surely grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Admirable work and much success in your business dealings!
The GM MDI we offer is high quality with competitive price.You can take the GM MDI with the wholesales price,we also supply the technology support,update,software download,use review and price ect service for GM MDI.
GM MDI Online Shop:http://www.obdecu.com/products/GM-MDI_39.html
The fly308 pro we offer is high quality with competitive price.You can take the fly308 pro with the wholesales price,we also supply the technology support,update,software download,use review and price ect service for fly308 pro.fly308 pro Online Shop:http://www.obdecu.com/products/Fly308-pro_27.html