by Jonathan Hiskes
One of the most depressing aspects of the Gulf of Mexico oil leak is the idea that we’ve got no
choice but to rely on offshore drilling and the stomach-turning dangers it
carries. We know all the
problems with importing oil from petro-dictatorships. Electric cars aren’t
ready to replace fuel-combustion engines. The only option, political leaders
tell us, is for Americans to choke down the occasional drilling catastrophe and
deal with the ugly consequences.
“Accidents happen,”
said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). “You learn from them and you try not to make
sure they don’t happen again.”
“I doubt this is the
first accident that has happened and I doubt it will be the last,” said
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
“The reality of it is
that we will be depending on oil and gas as we transition to a new energy
future,” Ken Salazar, President Obama’s Interior secretary, told a Senate panel
last week. “You are not going to turn off the lights of this country or the
economy by shutting it all down.”
Is it true that we’ve
got no alternative?
The last time lawmakers
truly freaked out about the problem of our oil dependence—when gas prices
topped $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008—the Senate Energy Committee called in
Skip Laitner, director of economic analysis at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
The committee asked
Laitner what efficiency—the famously unglamorous energy strategy—could do to
relieve gas prices. He gave them an astonishing figure: It could save 46
billion barrels of oil. If the U.S. made an all-out investment in energy
efficiency-cutting energy waste out of vehicles, buildings, the electrical
grid, and elsewhere in the economy—Laitner believes it could save the energy
equivalent of 46 billion barrels by 2030.
Domestic offshore
drilling produced 537 million barrels a year over the last nine years,
according to the Minerals Management Service. A full-bore efficiency plan would
save the equivalent of 85 years of offshore drilling.
Looking at the
transportation sector alone, Laitner recommended 10 short-term policies that
would cut the need for oil. Congress eventually passed one of them-the “cash
for clunkers” program. Even that could be improved upon: the lax fuel-economy
standards for new cars meant the trade-in program didn’t save nearly as much
fuel as it could have
If you’re tired of dead
sea turtles, oil-coated marshlands, destroyed fisheries, disputes over leak
rates, political cop-outs, terms like tar balls and junk shots (OK, those are funny), these are for you:
10 solutions to our oil addiction
1. A better “cash for clunkers.” Last summer’s popular program
took hundreds of thousands of low-performing autos off the road, but its low
standards for the fuel economy of eligible new cars made it more of an
auto-industry bailout than an environmental boon. A two-year version that gave
credit for only truly efficient new vehicles (35 mpg or better) would save more
oil. Congress could pay for it by extending the 1978 gas guzzler tax to
light trucks and SUVs—it currently applies only to passenger cars.
2. Emergency funding for endangered mass transit. A chilling 59
percent of public transit networks have cut service or raised fares (or
both) since January 2009, pushing more commuters into cars. Congress could save
both oil and jobs by preserving existing bus and rail lines with emergency
funding.
3. A national telecommuting and videoconferencing initiative. Encouraging
employees to work from home and cut back on business travel would cut fuel
usage, save them money and commuting time, and probably make a lot of them
happier. Congress could direct federal workers to telecommute and
videoconference as much as possible. For everyone else, a campaign would help
make these things more normative and socially acceptable.
4. Smarter freight movement. Congress could commission a study to
explore a grab-bag of methods to lighten the impact of trucking and rail and
jet shipping. “Heavy trucks might save 32 percent of energy use through a
combination of improved fuel efficiencies, and better coordination to reduce
empty backhauls and unnecessary travel,” Laitner writes in a journal
article [PDF] Train design that reduces aerodynamic drag and collects
energy from braking (as a Prius does) could produce more savings.
5. Smarter land use. Congress could direct (and help fund) local
government efforts to update zoning and land-use regulations in ways that encourage compact development compatible
with transit service and friendly to walkers and bikers. (Obama’s Partnership
for Sustainable Communities is already taking steps in this direction.)
6. Smarter travel through IT. By equipping its trucks with directional
software that helps drivers avoid left-hand turns, UPS
saved 3 million gallons of fuel in a year. If the nation’s 270,000-some traffic-light
systems all used technology that anticipated traffic patterns and reduced stop times,
according to Laitner, they could cut transportation petroleum use by 5 to 10
percent. A national study into attacking fuel waste through information
technology could yield more such gains.
7. Educating drivers. Teaching energy-efficient driving practices (such as
slower acceleration) and maintenance (keeping tires inflated) would lead to
fuel-saving behavioral changes. Studying why people don’t take money-saving
steps like checking tire pressure could yield even more. Fuel-economy basics
could also become a central part of driver’s ed programs.
8. A resolution saying efficiency is a new national priority. A
“statement”—big deal, right? Well, it could be: An “efficiency is king”
resolution from Congress would send a clear signal to businesses, consumers,
and energy markets that would encourage them to make their own changes.
Congress could also tell government agencies to move immediately on efficiency
measures that would pay for themselves-and make funding contingent on that
action.
9. Prizes for tech breakthroughs. The privately run Automotive X Prize offers $10 million to the first team of engineers that can invent a commercially
viable 100 mpg car. Congress could consider similar incentives to encourage
entrepreneurs to focus on efficiency. (The Obama administration is already
funding potential high-payoff cleantech
research ventures.)
10. Efficiency “visibility.” Efficiency is a largely invisible energy
source. To correct that, writes Laitner, “Congress should direct and fund the
Department of Commerce, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
Agency (among others) to collaborate in the development of a National Energy
Efficiency Data Center (NEEDC).” We’re learning more than we ever wanted to
know about oil dispersants, blowout preventers, and other offshore rig
hardware. Why not learn instead about constructive technologies?
Related Links:
In wake of Gulf spill, should this be the summer of energy reform?
Show how much you—and BP—care with a commemorative oil spill T-shirt
Matthews tells Obama to kill BP’s disaster capitalism
