It’s late-August and we’ve entered two weeks of national party conventions with no hope of redemption from presidential politics during the next 70 days. Both sides are desperately trying to define the other through massive expenditures on attack ads, legions of surrogates, and talking heads spouting profundities regarding the other candidate’s treatment of a family pet or use of marijuana back in high school.
Too bad that, “we the people,” know so few details of either candidate’s proposals to lead us through the next four years. This is especially true regarding energy. Granted, this past week has seen both Messrs. Obama and Romney offer some time on the stump to energy, but neither has articulated a well-defined proposal for a national energy policy.
Energy affects every aspect of our lives. Plentiful, affordable, reliable energy supplies are fundamental for a healthy, growing economy, job creation, mobility, and national security. If combined with intelligent, cost-effective efficiency standards and innovative, long-term policies promoting private investment in new energy infrastructure and research, we could find ourselves on the path to real energy security.
The energy proposals of both campaigns, however, are discouraging. President Obama, not surprisingly, combines the issue under the banner of “Energy and Environment.” Governor Romney offers a more focused series of energy proposals under three broad categories: “Regulatory Reform,” “Increasing Production,” and “Research and Development.”
President Obama’s position is a series of grand, sweeping remarks about clean energy, clean jobs, and the, “All of the Above” energy strategy. More lines of text are devoted to environmental protection, including something called, “America’s Great Outdoors,” than to energy. The positions are underscored with a pronouncement to, “make sure we never have to choose between protecting our environment and strengthening our economy.”
Governor Romney highlights his energy initiatives in 14 succinct bullets. They range from reducing regulatory delays, expanding resource production on federal property, to funding long-term energy research. It’s a fairly good smattering of short-term strategies until he succumbs to political temptation and includes the hackneyed slogan “energy independence” by 2020.
As a result, both candidates offer little more than poll tested, political positions reflecting the will of their respective base. Neither side has posited a serious, clear-eyed vision of an effective national energy policy. Sadly, a vote for either candidate is simply going to ensure the status quo.
The nature of our energy challenges dictate that the policy be bold, well reasoned, and long-term in perspective. In other words, no politically expedient, short-term gimmicks.
Energy is a complex topic. There are no quick and easy fixes. “Drill baby drill,” “all of the above,” or “energy independence” are politically charged chants that don’t begin scratch the surface of the energy enigma. Sadly too, the political arena is probably the worst place to attempt to craft effective, long-term solutions.
Energy is international in scope. All nations, to varying degree, are interdependent. Whether it’s in the form of liquid petroleum products, natural gas, coal, uranium, renewables, or electric power, energy is fundamental to every nation’s existence and capability to thrive. In one form or another, energy is bought, sold, or traded in open international markets every day.
Considering our country’s energy demand, its supplies, and all of the economic, physical, and self imposed restrictions associated with them, we can only aspire to energy “stability” or “security.” Absent the introduction of a disruptive technology, we cannot truly be “independent.”
Our energy policy must support the economic and security interests of the nation. It must be an unambiguous, broadly inclusive, high-level pronouncement to guide, not prescribe, how we meet our energy needs.
It must be based upon clear, scientific logic and the application of sound engineering principles. While many technologies may be possible, only those that are operationally and financially sustainable and can deliver the desired results will ultimately be accepted in the market. Intermittent renewables certainly have their place, but are in no way substitutes for our existing carbon and nuclear fueled technologies used to meet base load demand.
The massive scale of energy dictates long planning and utilization timeframes. Whether it is the liquid fuels providing our mobility, solid and gaseous energy supplies for heat and power generation, or the infrastructure to deliver them all, decisions made today will be with us well into the latter half of this century.
Finally, it must recognize that there is absolutely nothing in this world that is risk free. Choices and trade offs are inevitable. Rational, fact-based decisions of policy makers supported by the analysis of subject matter experts is required.
It’s likely too late in the silly season to expect that either presidential campaign would embrace this reality. Even more unlikely that the political hacks would allow them to publicly admit it. But, wouldn’t it be refreshing if they did? That would energize the electorate this year!
bridge to the energy future 