BRIC Nations Driving Global Warming

After the American Century

I recently spent two days at the University of Michigan, attending a conference dealing with sustainability and the US / China relationship. My brief was to deliver a plenary lecture on the history of US energy use, and what that history suggests about the future.

The background for this discussion is the major shift in the sources of pollution that has taken place during the previous five years. In c. 2006 the United States released more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other country. Since then the US has reduced its carbon footprint, and at the same time its total energy use has stopped growing. In contrast, China's economy has been growing at a rate of 9 or 10% every year, and its energy use has shot well beyond the US level. In fact, China alone released more CO2 last year than the United States, Germany, and the UK combined.

When one adds the CO2 from Brazil, Russia, and India, the other "BRIC" nations, the pollution balance shifts even more dramatically. These four emerging economies taken together are demanding more and more energy and they are satisfying this demand mostly through the older polluting technologies. Alternative energies receive lip service. Indeed, the many Chinese delegates to the meeting in Michigan kept repeating that the pollution was created to manufacture things for the West, and therefore the CO2 releases should not be counted against China. 

This is a curious argument. Chinese factories choose to be highly polluting of their own water and soil in order to keep prices down, a subject that was dealt with at the conference. These factories also choose to pay workers poorly in order to keep prices down, a topic that however was scarcely mentioned. Exploiting their own land, air, people, and energy resources in a short-sighted manner, the Chinese are making  a good deal of money. But the CO2 somehow, they think, is not their responsibility.

In contrast, almost all the large western economies have managed to reduce their CO2 levels in the last decade. One must admit that they start from an entirely different position. Per capita, Americans, Germans, and Brits all use far more energy than the average Chinese and enormously more than the average Indian. Starting from a position of excessive energy use, the West can cut back largely by adopting new technologies that are more efficient and less polluting. 

The overall trend is worrisome. The BRIC national economies are growing rapidly, and their CO2 emissions are keeping pace. This is not a sustainable situation. Nor is it a necessary situation.

I explained why in my lecture. Drawing on my  Consuming Power, I briefly summarized the previous American energy regimes from colonial times to the present: muscle power, water power, steam power, electrical power, gas and oil, and the never entirely realized nuclear regime. 

I then drew several conclusions. 

First, that the US has had little or no historical experience with shortages. Shifts in energy use were driven by consumer demands for more rather than the need to replace disappearing sources. 

Second, that since c. 1820 there have been new energy regimes roughly every 40 years. This strongly suggests that the shift to alternative energies will also take four decades, and that it will not entirely replace but rather supplement previous energy sources. 

Third, statistics show that since c. 1940 the largest growth in energy use in the US has been in the consumer sector. Industry has been much better at curbing its appetites. The good news is, that, based on studies of best practices - i.e. using existing technologies - the US could cut its total energy use by 50%. This would not entail any hardships or major changes in lifestyle. Rather, this would mean that per capita US energy use fell to the level of Germany or Denmark. The existing technologies include improved housing insulation and heat exchangers, already in use in Germany, that come close to eliminating the need for most domestic heating or cooling. Heat pumps, passive solar, solar panels, geothermal, burning waste, and wind power together provide a good mix of alternatives. Utilized together with pumped storage of hydro power, they eliminate the bogus argument raised by the oil, gas, and coal companies, who claim that alternative energies cannot provide energy around the clock, because the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow.

Fourth, half of the reduced US energy demand could be met though a mix of alternative energies, including far more than wind and solar power. Again, new technologies are not necessary. What we already have is sufficient to achieve this result. But note that the cost of solar power has been steadily falling, at a rate that economist Paul Krugman estimates to be 7% every year.

In other words, rather than set a goal of unchanged total use, of which 25% is to be alternative energy, I firmly believe that the US goal should be to reduce its energy consumption by half and satisfy the  remaining energy demand by using alternative energies. Moreover, the BRIC nations could do the same thing. Rather than adopt old-fashioned technologies, such as coal-fired electrical plants, they could move directly toward the sustainable goal. Their models should be Denmark and Germany. They should not measure themselves against the US, whose energy use is indefensible and unsustainable. Indeed, there is some evidence that the Chinese have begun to understand this more quickly than the US itself. Certainly China has moved to be a global leader in solar energy.

The fundamental problem of excessive energy use is not technological, but social and political.

Earth Hour: Vote for Sustainability by Turning Off the Lights

After the American Century

This year Earth Hour is on Saturday, March 26. Around the world millions of people will join this event and cut back their electrical consumption. This is a fundamentally new use of the technology of electricity, as people declare  that excessive energy use threatens the environment.

Less than a century ago most of the world's houses, and most in the US as well, did not have electricity. A blackout was inconceivable, as most people controlled their own light, in the form of lamps, candles, hearth fires, and the like. Between 1911 and 2011 a tremendous change has taken place. Not only have billions of people wired their houses and apartments, but the electrical systems have been connected together into vast grids. These are in many ways admirable, ingenious engineering feats, designed to shunt power around to balance the load at each local utility.  

But the interconnections that make possible the grid also make possible cascading system failures, spreading blackouts from one city and state to another. The most spectacular examples in the United States occurred in 1965 and 2003, when blackouts spread at almost the speed of lightning and pushed millions of people from the power dependency of the electrical age back to an involuntary self-sufficiency. With each generation we are less able to fend for ourselves, as more and more parts of our lives are inextricably linked to the electrical system. When the power fails, there is no Internet, no television, no microwave, and no air conditioning. The ATM does not work, mobile phones are suddenly dead, and the kitchens dark and useless, unless one has a gas stove. Even so, all the food begins to thaw in the freezer.

Earth Hour reminds us how to live without the power, however briefly, but it is far more than that. It also is each person's chance to use the electrical system as a voting machine. Turn off the appliances, switch off the lights, and tell politicians and fellow citizens that you want to pollute less and be more efficient. Join Earth Hour as a declaration that the endless growth in electrical consumption has to stop somewhere.

Did you know that the average American family today uses as much energy every month as their grandparents did in an entire year? Did you know that electrical consumption for the US as a whole doubled roughly every decade for most of the twentieth century? That kind of growth is not sustainable, nor is it necessary to live a good life. Turn off the lights. Rediscover conversation. With luck, after an hour you might be telling stories. Shut off the TV, look up, and see the stars.

------------

For more on the history of blackouts, see my When the Lights Went Out: A History of American Blackouts (MIT Press, 2010). On the energy system, see Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies (MIT Press, 1998), and Electrifying America (MIT Press, 1990).

 

Japan's Nuclear Nightmare Is a Warning

After the American Century

As I write this three nuclear reactors in Japan are in various stages of meltdown. The Japanese electrical industry adopted nuclear power plants for much the same reasons that western European nations did: the desire for a secure domestic energy supply, escaping dependence on fossil fuels. In recent decades the nuclear industry has touted the reactor as a clean and safe alternative to CO2 spouting coal-fired plants. While living in the UK I read innumerable newspaper articles extolling the advantages of atomic power, as the only responsible way to meet the nation's energy needs and curb greenhouse gases at the same time. 

All arguments for nuclear power, however, assume placid normality for very long periods. Even though nuclear plants impose the problem of storing waste for many generations, the assumption always seems to be that there will be no earthquakes, no floods, and no tsunamis. They also assume no successful terrorists, no wars, and no serious incompetence inside the plant. Furthermore, several thousand years of nuclear waste storage are not usually in the economic equation. The nuclear industry wants to profit right now and promise us that nothing untoward is going to happen for several millennia. 

The nuclear industry will now take pains to convince us that the meltdowns in Japan are extraordinary, and that the chance of anything similarly going wrong elsewhere in the future are infinitely small. Meanwhile, their public relations people will continue to attack solar and wind power, saying things that are not true, such as it is impossible to store such power. Nonsense. The Dutch, the Germans, and Texans have all shown precisely how it can be done, for example, through pumped storage and compressed air stored in caverns, to name just two methods.

What is tragically happening in Japan is a suggestive scenario for any place that handles nuclear materials, either in making nuclear fuel rods, transporting them to nuclear plants, using them, and then dealing with the tons of nuclear waste produced. This waste will include the entire nuclear plant itself, which cannot operate forever, but eventually must be decommissioned. At that point, it will be highly radioactive inside, and it will have to be guarded 24/7 for generations. Is that an expense we can send to future geneations?

The terrible events in Japan reveal the dangers posed by nuclear power everywhere, and should serve as a warning. This is not a safe or even an economically wise energy path. Far better to reduce energy consumption by increasing our efficiency, building more energy efficient buildings that reduce by 90% the power needed to heat and cool them (no pipe dream this, for it is already demonstrated in practice for houses and office buildings), and moving toward solar and wind power as much as possible.

Who is Energy Efficient? Blue States

After the American Century

All solar demonstration house on the Washington Mall

Once again the individual American states have been evaluated for energy efficiency, and again California is the most efficient, with Massachusetts close behind. Basically, the "blue" states that voted for Obama are the most energy efficient, while the over-consuming states are mostly the "red" states that apparently don't really care about being green. Note the states at the bottom of the list, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming. These are also states that don't want a national health care system. Their motto should be "Pollute often - die young."

Here is the complete list:

#1 California          #18 Arizona           #35 Tennessee
#2 Massachusetts    #19 Colorado        #36 Kentucky
#3 Oregon              #19 District of Col #37 Alaska
#4 New York         #19 Nevada           #37 Georgia
#5 Vermont            #22 New Hampshire  #37 South Carolina
#6 Washington       #22 New Mexico #39 South Dakota
#7 Rhode Island     #24 N. Carolina   #41 Arkansas
#8 Connecticut       #25 Illinois           #42 Louisiana
#8 Minnesota         #26 Idaho             #43 Missouri
#10 Maine              #27 Delaware      #43 Oklahoma
#11 Wisconsin        #27 Michigan       #43 West Virginia
#12 Hawaii             #27 Ohio              #46 Kansas
#12 Iowa                #30 Florida          #47 Nebraska
#12 New Jersey     #31 Indiana          #48 Alabama
#12 Utah                #32 Texas            #48 Wyoming
#16 Maryland        #33 Montana        #50 Mississippi
#16 Pennsylvania  #34 Virginia        #51 North Dakota


Note that the "swing" states in presidential elections fall right in the middle of the list, including Michigan, Ohio, and Florida.

The list has changed somewhat in the last year, as states like Arizona and New Mexico have climbed to higher positions as they have adopted more solar energy.

If you want more information, click here.

Obama and the Copenhagen Climate Summit

After the American Century

President Obama has announced that he will briefly attend the Copenhagen Climate Summit. This is welcome news. But the timing of the visit (early) and its length (brief) suggest that the White House does not expect a major breakthrough to occur. After all, in the American system of government the President can only carry out what the independent Congress has mandated, and no laws are yet on the books that endorse even the modest 17% cutbacks that Obama has proposed.

One weakness of the preparations for the Copenhagen Summit is that there seem to be no clear guidelines on the methods of calculation that all nations share in advance. So when Obama says the US will cut CO2 emissions by 30% in 2025, this sounds much like what the EU is offering to achieve by 2020. It is not. The EU calculates from 1990 while the US is using a 2005 baseline. What the US is actually promising is to make reductions back to about where it was in 1990, while the EU is promising to go 20% lower than the 1990 level.

A second problem is that the focus really ought to be on per capita energy use and CO2 emissions. The United States uses about twice as much energy per person as Japan, so the US would need to reduce its total energy use by one half just to get to get even. Nations such as China and India, which each have more than four times as many people as the United States, look at per capita energy use, and relatively speaking do not see themselves as the problem. India uses less energy that the United States, and millions of its people still do not have regular electrical service. China is now the world's largest polluter, but the United States is by far the largest per capita.

A third problem is that the summit seems to be focused primarily on ends - CO2 reductions - without a corresponding showcase for the technological means to achieve it. Some nations, notably the UK, are adopting atomic energy as the way forward, since nuclear plants produce almost no CO2 compared to coal-fired ones. The problem is that atomic energy does produce serious amounts of toxic waste, and it must be stored for hundreds, or in some cases for thousands of years. Look around for examples of hermetically sealed buildings that have been constantly guarded for even 100 years. There are none. When all the long-term costs and dangers of atomic power are included, is it not likely that wind, tide, thermal, and solar power are more desirable?

In short, in addition to having a big political circus with heads of state coming that negotiate on the ends, the world needs an equally big demonstration of what is already possible. We already have the means available to build houses that are close to self-sufficient. We already can make automobiles that are twice as efficient as the average vehicle on the road today. There are hundreds of new technologies and best practices that just need to become better known and put to use.

The Kyoto agreement focused on noble ends, but they have not been achieved. In practice, not even one of the major industrial nations that signed the Kyoto agreement has in fact managed to do what they promised. In every case, energy use has continued to rise. (See my October 1, 2009 blog on this.) It is time to focus more on the technological means. The leaders can promise whatever they like, but will they know how to achieve those noble ends?

Is Anyone Really Saving Energy?

After the American Century

Is anyone really saving energy? Time for a little reality check, as all the green rhetoric might make one believe the use of electricity and gasoline is falling.

The Kyoto Protocol was intended to help reduce pollution and CO2 levels. Signed by most of the world's nations beginning in 1997, it went into effect in 2005. However, during this eight-year interval, the signatory nations failed even to restrain consumer demand, which galloped ahead each year by an average of 500 billion additional kilowatts.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, in 2005 the world was using one third more electricity annually than it had in 1997. This growth was by no means evenly distributed. Japan, whose economy was not growing much anyway, nearly achieved zero energy growth (4%) in contrast to China's rampant 223% increase. Germany (10%), France (17%), and the United Kingdom (12%) grew rather than shrank their demand, but they were less profligate than Ireland (51%), India (40%), Argentina (39%), or Brazil (27%). Almost everywhere the consumer wanted more and no nation had managed to reverse the trend.

The failure to reduce energy use cannot be explained by cost-benefit analysis. US energy efficiency could be improved by 23% through off-the-shelf technologies such as better insulation, replacement of inefficient appliances and light bulbs, and the like. The cost of making these changes would quickly be recovered through large savings on electricity bills. But consumers do not want to invest up front to get the longer term benefits.

Likewise, automobiles are on sale that are twice as efficient as the average car on the American road. Moreover, Europeans and Asians, who once could sneer at Americans for driving so much have adopted the car in ever increasing numbers. Indeed, earlier this year for the first time the Chinese topped the US in new car sales, with more than 1 million new vehicles sold each month. Not much help for global warming there.

Do not be lulled by green rhetoric into thinking that politicians have actually done anything much to stop global warming. CO2 emissions are rising along with consumer demand. This is a global problem and no nation has yet really demonstrated that it can reduce its level of emissions and consumption to below the 1997 level - which was the idea of the Kyoto Protocol. So far, it is all wishful thinking.

Danish Awareness of "Earth Hour" Dim

After the American Century

Across the world, in 88 countries, cities turned out their lights last night for one hour, starting at 20:30 local time. The Houses of Parliament and Big Ben, dark. The Eiffel Tower? Noir. The Chinese Olympic stadium, Sydney's harbor bridge and opera house, Atlanta's Coca Cola Building, dark. Toronto reduced its total electricity consumption by 15% during "Earth Hour," more than twice as much as last year. It may have been the biggest global demonstration in history.

In most of the participating 2800 cities and towns, the local newspapers and politicians were actively promoting Earth Hour. However, I looked in vain for anything about Earth Hour II in two Danish newspapers this morning. Last night, the City of Odense turned out its streetlights at 20:30, as we did at our house. Yet, as I walked around our neighborhood, few others seemed to have done so. Using the simple test of looking for lighted candles showing in windows, it appeared that most people had lots of light bulbs on, and that perhaps one in ten actively supported "Earth Hour." I hope I am estimating incorrectly, but in the last week I have not sensed any awareness of this event. Not a single student, colleague, or neighbor has mentioned Earth Hour to me, or showed any interest in it when I mentioned it. Not one journalist has called or written an email asking for my view of Earth Hour, from the viewpoint of an energy historian.

This morning, the local newspaper (Fyens Stiftstidende) has not written a single word about "Earth Hour" that I can find. The front page features a photograph of two girls eating ice cream. The three stories on page one are about increasing service charges on house loans, Conservative tactics for the next (hypothetical) election, and an extremely important piece on the development of a cardboard, biodegradable "Paradise coffin" for pets, available in five sizes. On the plus side, the same newspaper has five pages about energy-saving forms of electric lighting in its second section, without, however, mentioning Earth Hour anywhere that I can see.

Apparently, for all-too-many Danes, global warming is only an issue of concern for thousands of cities in other parts of the world. Judging by this event, you would never know that Denmark is hosting a major climate conference that will seek a replacement for the Kyoto Accords. Political parties paid lip service to the event, but except for a single concert in Copenhagen, the event was a non-event in Denmark. For 2009, the clear message from Denmark seems to be that hardly anyone cares very much about Earth Hour or about forging a world consensus to reduce global warming. To anyone familiar with the current government, this should come as no surprise. Maybe next year they will use their wall switches to vote for change, to proclaim the solidarity with others, and to send their politicians a message.

Why You Should Turn Off the Lights Tonight

After the American Century


Turn off the lights for one hour, tonight. Why?

(1) Because this is a way for people all over the world to demonstrate, quite painlessly, that we are concerned about global warming and the over-intensive use of fossil fuels.

(2) Because all of us can use less energy every day, without sacrificing anything, and we need to remember that we are not passive spectators, watching global warming. We are actors. We can make a difference, if we act together. In 1997, the average home in the OECD countries used 38 watts every day just to keep appliances on standby. These 386 million households were wasting 14,634 megawatts a day. Does anyone think this waste is necessary? Of course not. But we need to make an effort.

(3) Because the electrified world is historically new, and once in a while we need to remember what darkness looks like. Human beings evolved without artificial light, and during this hour we might reflect on where we stand in relation to the more than 100,000 years of human history. Human beings have used electricity for light and power for less than one tenth of one percent of human history. In that blink of an eye, historically speaking, we have polluted the atmosphere and the sea and unbalanced ecological systems in ways that we are struggling to understand.

(4) Because your house and your family seen by candlelight are beautiful in ways that you may not have seen lately. The human eye did not evolve to see the world blanketed in electric light, but rather evolved to see somewhat differently by day and by night.

(5) Because if the sky is clear, you will get a good look at the heavens. The urban landscape especially can be improved by reducing electric light. Most urbanites scarcely see the heavens at night, because excessive artificial light reflects into the atmosphere, making it impossible to see more than the brightest stars.

So why let this night be like all the others? Why not turn out the lights, and look for a local arrangement celebrating "Earth Hour" as it is called in many places, following the Australians who began this ritual in Sydney. The Danes are calling it something else, and starting not on the hour but at 20:30.

As the Toronto Star put it last year, “This event is an opportunity to show how individuals acting together as a community can have a huge impact. Ultimately, we hope it gets people thinking and talking here in Toronto and in cities around the world about real solutions to what is arguably the most important issue of our time.”

Ranking the States on Energy Efficiency

After the American Century

Energy is a central part of the announced Obama program, so it is useful to know which states (and their representatives in Congress) are most disposed to support him. A new report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy rates all 50 states, not in terms of their energy use per capita, but in terms of their utility regulations, transportation legislation, building codes and other laws that require or at least encourage better energy practices. The most conscientious states turn out to be those that Obama won, led by California and Oregon, and including New York, New Jersey, the New England States, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. These are quintessential "blue states" in other words, and they all receive scores of at least 25 out of a possible 50, California being the highest with 40.5.

And those at the bottom? All are "red states" with the worst score going to Dick Cheney's Wyoming, a perfectly dreaful 0. But there are remarkably low scores also for Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and so on. To make the symmetry rather complete, swing states are in the middle, with higher scores if they are in the North and lower if they are further south. Thus Missouri had an anemic score of only 4, and was 45th in the nation. The most northern swing state, New Hampshire, had the highest score among them, with 16.5, and came in 18th. Another northern swing state, Ohio, scored scored 16 and came in 19th.

These are not merely statistics. The states spent just under $3 billion on energy efficiency in 2007, almost four times what George Bush budgeted for it. In short, the states that supported Obama most strongly are also those most prepared to take advantage of any new energy programs.

There is one interesting exception to these generalizations, the State of Michigan. It ranks just 38th overall, in contrast to its more environmentally conscientious neighbors in the northern tier of the US. Center of the American car industry, Michigan seems wedded to energy profligracy.

Al Gore's Energy Challenge

After the American Century

"I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years."
Al Gore, July 17, 2008

Al Gore has injected some needed seriousness into the political campaign, helping us to move beyond the silly New Yorker cover. He has called on Americans to produce 100% of their electrical energy using alternative energy, in just ten years. Comparing the project to the successful program to land a man on the moon, Gore presents energy not as a problem but an opportunity. If American farmers grow crops for American biofuel plants, and if American factories produce wind mills, solar panels, and other components of an alternative power system, the US economy will prosper, and the nation will cease to be dependent on foreign oil suppliers. Gore has declared that it is technologically feasible, ecologically useful, and politically necessary to move decisively away from fossil fuels.

Gore's proposal is a logical development in his thinking. After presenting the public with the inconvenient truth of global warming and its dire effects, his plan offers a way out of the crisis. By presenting it months before the American presidential election, he puts it on the table as one of the major issues of the campaign, along with Iraq and the economy. Initial reactions from the two candidates suggest that Obama is far more receptive than McCain, even though his sun-rich home state of Arizona would profit from more emphasis on solar power. Obama declared, "I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power, and advanced biofuels." McCain did not reject Gore's plan, but was less supportive, as one might expect. McCain has championed off-shore oil drilling - i.e. increasing the American supply of oil - while Obama has rejected that idea. So, while Gore wants to lift energy policy making out of the morass of partisanship, this is not likely. But fortunately, both McCain and Obama are far more supportive of developing alternative energies than Bush has been.

Realism suggests that ten years will be too short a time horizon for a full conversion. to alternative energies. The shifts from an economy based predominantly on wood to coal, and from coal to natural gas and oil, each took considerably longer than a decade. But the point is not whether Gore's idea is strictly feasible in ten years. Considerable numbers of people are still burning wood, after all. Rather, the point is that a shift to a predominantly new energy regime is highly desirable, the quicker the better. Clearly it cannot be limited to revamping the approach to electricity production, but should extend to motorized transport as well. Hybrid cars have now proved themselves, and there is no reason to permit new cars that get less than 35 miles per gallon, and even those cars should be taxed heavily enough to make automobiles that get more than 40 mpg attractive. Strictly speaking, the US has oil supplies of its own, that it might continue to consume at 30% of the present level without imports. But the environmental impact of more CO2 is so undesirable that Gore is right about making a fundamental shift. The world, and the US in particular, desperately needs a new energy system.

But even the realistic hope that two-thirds of the fossil fuel energy regime could be replaced may be too optimistic. Unfortunately, all energy systems have considerable "technological momentum," the term that Thomas P. Hughes developed to analyze the ways that energy systems perpetuate themselves. Hughes is absolutely not a conspiracy theorist, who thinks that oil companies and lobbyists connive to keep the present system going. Rather, the enormous infrastructure and the ingrained habits of those who use it, has a powerful momentum that finds expression in the physical layout of cities and homes, the location of resources, the training offered by the educational system, the trillions of dollars invested in the present infrastructure, and on and on. There are millions of people whose jobs are largely shaped by the old energy system, and it will be difficult to move swiftly to a new energy regime, even if Gore makes this a major campaign issue, and even if the right legislation is speedily passed in Congress.

All the more reason for Al Gore to push as hard as he can on this vital issue, and all the more reason why the rest of us should be joining him.


Interested in the historical background to this discussion? Consult David E. Nye,
Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies (MIT Press, in paperback), or
Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology (MIT Press, in paperback).

Bush Dusts off Reagan's Energy Script, for McCain

After the American Century

In my last Blog I recalled the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan on energy in the 1980 campaign. No sooner had I published it than the Republicans began to talk just like Reagan did at that time. Back then the oil crisis apparently made it necessary to drill for Alaskan oil. The hue and cry was that the whole energy crisis was caused by over-zealous bureaucrats cheered on by environmentalists. It worked for the Republicans then. The public preferred to hear not that the shortages were real but that the US had lots of its own oil.

So the Republicans will try to blame the Democrats for the oil shortage! Not Detroit automakers who made inefficient cars and fought every attempt to raise the mandated minimum mpg (miles per gallon) for their fleets. Not campaign donors who run the oil corporations, who are reporting obscenely large profits. Not the Saudis and OPEC! Not rising demand in Asia. NO! Blame the Democrats.

Ronald Reagan, 1980: "The truth is America has an abundance of energy. But the policies of this administration [President Carter] consistently discouraged its discovery and production."

Until yesterday, McCain opposed off-shore drilling on environmental grounds. Now he is singing from the oil corporation song book. He said yesterday: "We must take control over our own energy future and become once again the master of our fate." Where? In Houston, Texas, the oil capital of the United States. He was talking to oil executives at Bush Family Central. This is the same McCain who last week wanted everyone to believe that he cares about global warming and is much different from G W Bush.

Meanwhile, Obama - correctly - told the press that off shore oil, even if found, drilled for and extracted, would not be available for more than ten years. "Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best, since America only has 3% of the world's oil. . . .It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil."

Drilling for off-shore oil will not solve the current problem of higher gas prices, but it will continue the US fixation on oil, and it will make corporate Republicans billions of dollars. Interestingly, a few Republicans from tidewater states, notably California's Arnold Schwartznegger, openly rejected the joint McCain-Bush call for off-shore drilling. Oil spills are bad for tourism, destroy wildlife, and threaten fishing. Oh, and burning oil creates greenhouse gases. But please don't tell Mr. McBush, as he thinks drilling for oil that will not be available for a decade is better than using less oil immediately or leading a determined drive to find alternatives.

Obama and McCain on Energy

After the American Century

John McCain and Barack Obama have both announced energy programs. McCain says that he is more "green" than Bush on the issue of global warming, but is this proclaimed difference really visible? To the casual observer, McCain and Obama might look similar on this issue. Both want to reduce US emissions of methane and CO2. By 2050 McCain says he will bring them down to just 40% of the 1990 level; Obama expects to reduce them ever further, to a mere 20%. These promises deal with the situation 42 years from now. Conceivably Obama might still be alive at that time, but such projections are not too meaningful by themselves.

A bit more concretely, both candidates like the idea of trading CO2 credits. This is not a new idea, and has been pushed by American representatives at climate meetings for years. The idea of turning pollution into a market, where the "right" to pollute is bought and sold appeals to US politicians because it makes the environment a part of business. Rather than set limits and then fine people for exceeding them, the notion is that corporations and cities will cut back on pollution if they get paid to do it. However, McCain wants to give away the initial quotas, at least the first time. Obama wants to sell pollution quotas and used the 150 billion dollars generated that way to support research into alternative energies and the like.

In line with this, Obama's goal is, by 2025, to produce 25% of all US electricity from wind, solar, biomass, and other sustainable sources. McCain has not set any definite goal, but claims that he supports alternative energies. In fact, he has a poor voting record in this regard.

With regard to ethanol, it is much the same story. Obama has a definite goal, while McCain "supports" the idea, but has no quota and in fact wants to stop subsidizing ethanol production. In other words, he says one thing but will do another.

Both candidates are realists, and can see that it is impossible to do away with coal-burning plants any time soon, but each wants to see "clean coal technology." Both also accept that atomic power can be an important source of electricity, but Obama is distinctly less enthusiastic about it. McCain sees atomic power as a good way to halt global warming, and admires the French for setting up such a comprehensive atomic power system, which supplies more than 75% of the nation needs.

The greatest differences between them lie in the area of curbing demand and conservation. Obama wants to convert all federal buildings to zero emission facilities and to give homeowners incentives for better insulation. McCain has no plans in this area at all. Likewise, Obama would give credits to utilities that managed to reduce customer demand, so they could profit not form growing the market but from shrinking it. McCain has no such plans.

Overall, Obama has made a greater commitment to alternative energy and to reducing demand. McCain sees nuclear plants as alternative energy, and seems not to understand that the most effective way to reduce oil dependency and CO2 emissions is to reduce energy use itself.

Overall, Obama has the more ambitious plan. McCain apparently thinks the market will solve the problem of global warming with the right incentives and leadership. Obama wants the government to invest directly in alternative energy R&D and set definite goals for conversion from the old system to a new, less polluting one. Where the Bush Administration at first questioned the reality of global warming and never made many efforts to change US energy use, McCain would at least rhetorically change the party line.

The basic McCain program looks quite a bit like that of Gerald Ford in 1975 . He claimed that if the US only would build a lot more nuclear plants and burn more coal, the nation could achieve energy independence by 1986. Obama's plan is more like that of Jimmy Carter, who also stressed alternative energies and greater conservation. Note that the public did not like Carter's plans, as they called for self-sacrifice and "the moral equivalent of war."

In 1980 Ronald Reagan proved far more popular with his energy plans, which basically denied that there was any real shortage. As he put it then: "Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline, and natural gas a little more slowly. . . .But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy. The Republican program for solving economic problems is based on growth and productivity. Large amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas lie beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present Administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, more taxes, and more controls, than more energy." This was irresponsible nonsense, and yet the public embraced this message. Under Reagan the country denied that there ever had been an energy crisis or that it could ever come again. As he declared during a speech in Cleveland, "The truth is America has an abundance of energy. But the policies of this administration consistently discouraged its discovery and production." He promised to "get America producing again" and concluded, "Every available resource we have must be used to free us from OPEC's domination." 28 years later, the Reagan promises of energy abundance ring rather hollow. But don't be too surprised if McCain's rhetoric begins to shift toward the winning Reagan formula. [In fact, McCain and Bush both began to do this two days after this Blog was published. See my posting for 18 June.]

Energy Efficiency and Better Transportation

After the American Century

Energy should be a key issue of this presidential campaign. The US has had a failed energy policy under Bush. Consumption of all forms of energy has risen. Imports of oil, in particular, have burdened the economy and made the nation increasingly dependent on uncertain suppliers. Undemocratic regimes control much of the world's oil, notably in Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, while one could discuss whether there really is democracy in Russia or Iraq. Americans are pumping billions of dollars into these economies every time they tank up.

The only solution seriously advanced by the Bush Administration has been that of substituting alcohol for some of that gasoline. This has pleased farmers, as they can grow more corn that before and get higher prices for it, too. But the diversion of agricultural production to providing oil substitutes is not a wise choice, for world agricultural prices are rising so fast that millions of people are now on the brink of starvation.

Fortunately, there are other solutions. Unfortunately, Americans have been slow to embrace them. Least glamorous, but most effecive, is conservation. I drive a car that gets about 43 miles to the gallon, double the US average. (I should have bought one that is even more efficient.) If all Americans purchased such automobiles, their vast consumption of oil would drop by 50%. Furthermore, I have chosen to live relatively near to my place of work, so my round trip is less than 10 miles. Few Americans live that close. Better yet, the Danish government has built a comprehensive system of cycle trails, including traffic lights, that makes it safe and convenient to bike to work. It takes me no more than 20 minutes each way, while driving is only 5 to 8 minutes faster. Few places in the US have provided such an infrastructure, so Americans drive even short distances because that is often the only safe alternative when going to buy milk or a newspaper. By my rough estimate, compared to Europeans, Americans drive twice as far using cars that are only half as efficient. In short, if Americans switched to more efficient cars they would import much less oil. By reducing demand, they might also push down the price at the pump.

But buying the right kinds of cars is only the beginning. Let me be blunt. My fellow Americans, you have been squandering billions of dollars driving cars that are larger than you need. You have devoted half the land in your cities to roads, driveways, and parking lots. You have imprisoned yourselves in an inefficient and individualistic transportation system that is now choking the nation almost to death. You once had a comprehensive system of mass transit, in the form of light-rail, that existed in every major city and most towns until c. 1930. You have abandoned that system in most places and almost destroyed the passenger railroad network as well. You should be demanding its reconstruction.

In 2008 it is long past time for a change. It is time to demand from presidential candidates the construction of high-speed railroads, of the sort long used successfully in Japan and France. These trains routinely go 200 miles an hour - or faster. It is 190 miles from Boston to New York, 225 miles from New York to Washington. Each trip would be about an hour on such a train. It could be possible to go from Chicago to Minneapolis in about two hours, or from St. Louis to Chicago even less. Flying should be for distances of at least 500 miles. It is idiotic to drive or to fly shorter distances, because the time and hassle needed to go to the airport, get through all the security arrangements, board, fly, disembark, collect bags and then travel to the city center, is hours longer than the time needed to take a good train for the same distance. Likewise, it is foolish to drive several hundred miles because it is tiring, expensive, and environmentally damaging. On the train (in Europe) you can sleep, relax, read a book, or surf the net.

In 2008 it is time to wake up to the pleasures of not driving and to discover the relief of not standing in lines at airports. Instead of bankrolling autocratic regimes that happen to have oil supplies, instead of pumping out exhaust and causing global warming, instead of spending billions of dollars in Iraq, ostensibly to build democracy, but also to protect access to oil, it is time to rebuild the US into a more efficient and competitive nation that does not need so much oil in the first place.

The Real Campaign Issues I: Oil

All the candidates are talking about change. One area that screams out for change is US oil policy. The United States is the world's largest oil consumer and polluter per capita, and yet it has resisted the Kyoto Accords. Rather than offering leadership, the US has been a stumbling block. This is not in its own national interest, and it is economically wrong-headed, as well as contributing to environmental degradation. 

The US spends billions of dollars a year on imported oil, and yet its cars are far less efficient than they might be. Indeed, while some mild requirements for miles per gallon have been imposed on automobiles, the gas-guzzling SUVs and small trucks driven by millions of Americans are exempt from controls. I even know one 80 year-old woman who drives a Humvee to the supermarket, getting about 4 miles to the gallon. This is in rural Connecticut, where the need for an armored car is minimal. Gas mileage for cars in the US is roughly the same now as it was thirty years ago, and it was better in 1988 than in 2008!  Could there be any connection between this policy fiasco and the fact that former oil executives, i.e. members of the Bush family, have been running the country for 12 of those 20 years? I am not suggesting a conspiracy, just inability to see that the world has changed. Only as his presidency has drifted toward its end has George W. Bush admitted that, in his words, the nation is "addicted to oil." But after making that admission in a State of the Union message, little has changed. Except the price of oil. It has kept going up. 

The US today could drive just as much and use less than half the oil it does today, if only it made a real effort. American cars today average less than 25 mpg. The Toyota Prius gets 55 mpg. The Honda Insight got 70 mpg. Detroit did not build these cars, and has consistently fought for lower standards, and that means more imported oil, primarily from the Middle East. Detroit has not shown any leadership, and it has backed candidates with a similar (lack of) ideas, notably George Bush and another former oil executive, Dick Cheney.

This is the old story. Do any of the candidates in this election want to champion a new story? The Democratic candidates seem to want a new policy for gas mileage, but the American public has generally resisted any forced changes in the automotive lifestyle. Obama has proposed to help Detroit make the transition to hybrid cars by having the Federal Government pick up some of the health-care costs the car industry has. As he points out, health care now adds $1500 to the cost of every car, which is more than the cost of the steel. In short, Obama has moved beyond mere rhetoric to look for a solution and a partnership. He argues that Ford, GM, and Chrysler really have no choice. If they want to stop losing market share, then they will have to begin making more fuel efficient cars.  Obama also champions substituting home-grown biofuels for oil, reducing the costly dependence on foreign oils. Obama has also said that he would appoint a Secretary of Energy Security, in order to keep focused on the problem.

Hillary Clinton has some of the same ideas. More efficient cars, bio-fuel, more solar and wind power. She introduced legislation in 2006 for a "strategic energy fund" that would put $9 billion over a five year period into energy research, and and she suggested taxing the oil companies to help pay for it. Clinton has noted that ExxonMobil made the highest corporate profits in history, and together with the five other large oil companies had profits of $113 billion in 2005. A tax of less than 10% on their profits from one year would be enough to pay for the research into alternative energies. 

In short, both Obama and Clinton see the importance of new energy policies. Both see the dangers of relying on foreign oil, the dangers of global warming, and the need to rescue Detroit from its own backward looking executives. Either, if elected, would push the US in the right direction. But how hard would they push? Jimmy Carter was educated as an engineer, and he understands thermodynamics. Unfortunately, he did not find a way to get the public to accept his energy plans. Instead, Ronald Reagan told the electorate what they wanted to hear, that the shortages were artificial results of red-tape and environmentalists tampering with the free market. Never overestimate the American voter when it comes to oil. Convenience and the cost at the pump may matter more than global warming or national security or preserving what is left of the automobile industry. But at least if either Clinton or Obama are elected, there is a chance that the US will have an intelligent policy.

Anyone interested in the story of how the US became the world's largest consumer of energy might want to go to the library and borrow my Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies (MIT Press).

A blog on Electricity will follow next month.