People power needed to change energy policies

Washington has talked a great deal about energy independence, and thrown billions of dollars at the problem, but somehow all of this activity doesn’t seem to have convinced anyone that we are any closer to a solution. Perhaps the reason we can’t make headway is that there are five important facts misunderstood or ignored.

As part of Energy Independence Day activities on March 3rd, more than a hundred energy independence activists spent time in Washington, making our message heard on Capitol Hill. As part of that effort, I addressed a group at the Rayburn House Office Building to lay out those facts and dispel the misconceptions.

Here are the essentials of what was said:

• Preventing Global Warming and Achieving Energy Independence are separate goals that require very different solutions. It is a myth that we can solve both with the same approach. Most of the effort on energy so far has focused on preventing global warming and creating “green” jobs, and almost all of that effort has focused on using solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power to replace coal and gas for producing electricity. But even if every watt were produced using these renewables, it would replace only a small fraction of the oil we use, because practically no oil (less than 3 percent) is used for generating electricity. To reduce oil consumption and achieve energy independence we must pay separate and specific attention to transportation because that’s where the vast majority (70 percent) of oil is used. To end our dependence on imported oil, what are needed are solutions to reduce, replace or displace the oil we use to power our cars, trucks, buses and planes.

• It is myth and a mistake to think that both energy goals can be achieved together just by quickly getting “off of oil and onto the grid,” for transportation. If that could be done, clean electric power or clean fuels produced by electricity could power our cars. But, such a transformation will take decades – not because the technologies (electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids or cars powered by hydrogen or CNG) are unavailable – but because of the time it will take for these new automotive technologies to sufficiently penetrate the consumer market to appreciably reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.

As wonderful as such a solution may be for the future, and as much as these technologies deserve our vigorous support and government funding, we need to recognize that they can do very little to help us reduce oil consumption in the next decade or more. To understand the magnitude of the problem of depending on consumer adoption of such new technology, you only need to look at President Barack Obama’s energy plan, which proposes placing one million plug-in hybrid cars on U.S. roads by the 2015 model year. That approach would leave more some 300 million gasoline-powered vehicles on the road. Any approach that leaves us so far from independence is a band aid, not a cure.

• We cannot afford to continue to rely for another decade or two on imported oil – That’s what will happen if we wait until new technology can gain market share. Oil forces continued dependence on energy supplies from the Persian Gulf, Russia or Venezuela; and continue having us spend a half-trillion dollars every year on imported oil bought from countries that then use the funds to spread hatred of American and western ideals, purchase weapons and engage in nuclear proliferation. We need a program that can massively reduce imported oil consumption right now – what I call “an energy bridge” to the future.

• A program to end our dependence on imported oil for transportation can be put in place today, and it uses existing technology. The centerpiece of such a plan is a requirement that the auto industry produce cars that could run on substitute liquid fuels including ethanol, methanol and biodiesel (so-called “flexible fuel” vehicles) coupled with a strategy for producing these fuels quickly, cheaply and without raising food prices or harming the environment. Call this an Energy Freedom Plan, an Open Fuel Standard, a Green Fleet Initiative—by any name, many people argue this must be done now.

What makes these plan best among others is that the auto industry could produce these cars in the millions right now at an added cost of only about $100 per car. The cars would be virtually indistinguishable to the consumer from ordinary gasoline-powered vehicles, and they could be driven immediately, without any vast investment in refueling infrastructure. Unlike plans that rely on CNG, plug-ins or electric vehicles (EVs) America’s Energy Freedom Plan could reduce the number of gasoline powered cars on the road by 22-24 million vehicles during the first 3 years of the program, and by about 12 million vehicles each year thereafter. Its impact on oil consumption would be enormous.
• Such a plan for energy independence will be enacted only if we can organize a grass roots movement in America to demand action from our national leaders. That movement needs to keep our nation’s leaders focused on the “sweet spot” where energy independence, solving global warming and creating jobs all converge. And it needs to keep reminding them that focusing on only two of the three goals – global warming and jobs – will not do.

Neal Goldstein is the executive director of Energy Alternatives for the 21st Century and can be found at www.ea-21.org.