 | | Michael Carruth: Where is the Cry for Energy Independence?
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:44:57 -0500
Subject: Where is the Cry for Energy Independence?
From: Michael Carruth mike@carruth.net
To: <ron@themayreport.com>
Ron,
The content in this email is not the position of digital Bootcamp, so if you
decide to print it, please substitute my digitalbootcamp address for
mike@carruth.net
Thanks!
Hi Ron,
I wanted to write this email after your "Hydrogen Economy" piece a few weeks back, but only got to it this past weekend.
Whomever is elected to the Oval Office this November, we need them to step to the dais on Jan 20 and present a challenge to the American People which is no less than "We pledge to eliminate our dependence on foreign energy sources within a decade..." After that, it will be his responsibility to
rally and unite the scientists, the crackpot entrepreneurs with "crazy"
ideas, the banks, the regulators and the public-at-large to get behind the
fight, keep the heat on (both figuratively and literally) and reach the
goal.
Many readers may be initially inclined to say "There's no way that is
possible." or "That would be isolationist and would do more harm than good."
Hopefully, as you read on, this inclination will change from "no way" to
"only way."
Certainly, such a proclamation would be an equal or greater challenge than
the one put forth in the "We pledge to go to the moon" speech made by the
other JFK, ultimately propelling us to the lunar surface by the end of the
1960s. When that pledge was made, the technology that would get us there was barely conceived and many said it could not be done. "Not because they are easy, but because they are haaaad." Amen!
Obviously, there are rich and powerful forces raging against such an
initiative (and if you doubt it, go see "Fahrenheit," rent "Power" starring
Richard Gere from the mid-1980s, or flip to any news program). But the kind of initiative we're talking about here would, hopefully, rise above the
power of lobbyists and "old boy" networks--it would be a national movement
which scores victories across so many constituencies (from environmentalists to greedy Wall Street types, from farmers to suburban commuters and everyone in between) that people of influence could not ignore it.
This would need to be on par with the mobilization effort during WW-II.
Everyone is involved, everyone has skin in the game and nobody can be
excused from class.
Imagine, if you will, a July day in 2017 when OPEC calls an emergency
meeting to lower prices again in an effort to spur demand. The 3.3 billion
barrels per year that the U.S. imported are now available for purchase, but
buyers are scarce (as The European Community and China have followed the
United States' lead and are in the final stages of their own energy
independence initiatives).
There's oppression and strife in a desert kingdom. Being the Land of the
Free, we have an interest in putting it down. But it is not a national
emergency of the highest order as it was in 1990 when the full Saudi
production was in imminent danger of long-term disruption. It does not
cause the Dow to plummet and Americans to begin buying bicycles and candles.
Do our leaders not see that, at any moment, OPEC could just say "ENOUGH!...
No soup for you" and turn off the spigot? The need for a massive energy
independence initiative should have been put front and center the day after
the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo ended. In that poker game, OPEC members caught on
to the fact that the mighty United States had a fatal "tell" that would
allow these otherwise insignificant countries to win every hand, every time.
We would be at their mercy from that point on. Prices quadrupled in the
ensuing months (from $3/bbl in 1972 to $12/bbl in 1974), and there is no end
in sight if we stay this course.
During the 1973 crisis when supply was abruptly halted, the NYSE lost $383
Billion in value in six weeks (2003 dollars). That number would be much,
much higher today if such an embargo were declared.
Indeed, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. During this
important political season, where is the cry for a massive energy
independence initiative from either candidate? I hear "focus on renewable
energy sources" bandied about, but we have heard that for decades and are
only centimeters closer to the goal, rather than enjoying the milk in
victory lane. This is a "DefCon 1" situation and we need leaders who will
say so, then set the cause in motion.
Some who know me might say "Mike, you say all this, but you're driving a
gas-guzzling SUV! What up with that?" The quest for energy independence is
not about elimination of personal freedom of choice. In fact, it is my
opinion that this is where all other initiatives fail: they call upon
Americans to sacrifice rather than innovate. Give up my SUV and drive a
Prius instead? No thanks (besides, a double jogging stroller, a wife and
two kiddies in a Prius gets a bit tight with a man of my tonnage). Americans
can innovate our way out of this problem, as we have throughout history.
But we need solid leadership to set the table for this innovation, in a way
that is unprecedented in American industry. As these new technologies take
root, we may need to adjust our habits and even change some of our long-held
preferences. I'm ready. Say the word that we're on our way to energy
independence and I'll convert my Ford Excursion to a so-called "grease car"
(www.greasecar.com). Innovation over sacrifice. Ideas over fear or apathy.
This is intended to be a nonpartisan message, as it affects all of us. I
happen to be for Kerry, because I think the country needs to be taken in a
new direction on many issues apart from this. But President Bush could also
be a very viable and convincing proponent of such a plan. Afterall, he is a
Texan, and there is a big oil community in his circle of friends. In this
plan, there would be oodles and oodles of revenue for the "right" people
(the people without whom NO politician could get elected, so it applies
equally to Kerry).
This plan is not about NO oil, it is about no FOREIGN oil (which would make
necessary a radical reduction in the use of oil, but not the elimination of
it).
Americans, it's on us now .
Michael Carruth |