Home / Politics / Envisioning America’s Energy Future

Envisioning America’s Energy Future

Ever since the energy crisis in the 1970s, we have known that our dependence on foreign oil weakens us and impedes our progress as a nation.  By perpetuating an infrastructure and culture that consume tremendous amounts of oil, we have handed immense political leverage to countries that, to be frank, do not deserve it.  Although a select few of our leaders, beginning with President Nixon, have from time to time preached about ending our oil addiction, there’s been little practice.  Small dictatorial regimes in the Middle East have therefore continued to play us like a piano.

The defining moment in this disappointing narrative — and a key turning point in U.S. history — occurred in 1979, when President Carter, in the midst of an unprecedented energy crisis, rendered a sober diagnosis of the country in his famous “malaise speech.”  In a move that carried a huge political risk, Carter told America the truth. “Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption,” he said.  Carter stressed that in solving the country’s energy problem — and, even more significantly, its identity problem — there was “no way to avoid sacrifice.”

Seeing a political opening, then-Governor Ronald Reagan staked out an opposing position in his run for the presidency in 1980.  No such sacrifice would be required, countered Reagan.  Instead, the Gipper suggested, the instant gratification of across-the-board tax cuts, along with a titillating invocation of a “shining city on a hill,” could propel us forward.

Hence, Carter asked for sacrifice while Reagan offered cash.  Americans, of course, took the money.  That choice — the choice of short-term gratification over sacrifice in furtherance of a long-term vision of change – defined us as a nation for the better part of the next thirty years, ultimately with devastating consequences in virtually every area of American life.

It turns out that as Carter spoke to us in 1979, additional compelling reasons to wean ourselves from oil — over and above renewing civic spirit or geopolitical power — were coming to light.  At that time, scientists were already concluding that carbon-based emissions from burning fossil fuels (e.g., coal and oil) were causing the atmosphere to trap more heat from sunlight than it did previously.  As a result, the research showed, the earth was growing warmer, a trend that, if continued, could result in catastrophic damage to the planet and to human civilization itself.  Unbelievably, though, for many decades politics and ideology managed to obscure and otherwise marginalize the science on anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) climate change.

If there were any remaining scientific doubt, the 1995 report from the International Panel on Climate Change – an intergovernmental body of scientists of every stripe from all over the world, tasked with evaluating climate change — pretty much resolved it.  At that time, the IPCC concluded humans were having a “discernible influence” on global warming.  Every subsequent report issued by the IPCC has bolstered that conclusion.  Its 2007 report set out a 100-year trend that is indisputable.  Now, even previous naysayers — including the major oil companies like Exxon Mobil which is, incidentally, the largest carbon emitter in the world — are coming to terms with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence establishing anthropogenic climate change.

Are scientists 100 percent certain that the warming of the earth is anthropogenic?  No.  But they are about as certain as scientists can be.  If I told you that there was a 50 percent chance that a giant meteor was on course to collide with and do major damage to our planet, but that by acting now we could decrease, or even eliminate, the chance it would hit us, what would you advise that we do?  Gripe about the cost?  Require a higher probability of collision before taking action?  Probably not.

The point is that even in the absence of total certainty, we can’t afford not to act.  The consequences are too great.  We know that arctic ice is melting, breaking and cracking.  The summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent since 1979.  Consequently, sea levels are rising which will ultimately result in the flooding of populated coastal and island regions.  Weather patterns are changing and becoming more severe — Hurricane Katrina being the latest example — which scientists link to warming seawater.  Increased temperatures are also exacerbating health problems, increasing respiratory illnesses and insect-borne disease.

Scientists are particularly concerned about tipping points or positive feedback effects that could lead to runaway global warming.  For example, if the frozen tundras in Canada and Russia were to thaw it could lead to the release of huge amounts of methane and carbon, precipitating an accelerated course of events totally outside of human control.  As ice caps melt, moreover, there is more dark-faced ocean exposed, which absorbs more heat, causing more ice caps to melt, and so on.

“We can’t wait for climate change to bite because we won’t be able to put the genie back into the bottle,” says Hugh Montgomery, director of the Institute for Human Health and Performance at University College London. “Once catastrophe strikes, it’s too late.  We need to create a literate population that is aware of the situation because until we do, there is no hope.”

Pages: 1 2 3

Comments