Path to "energy independence": top down or bottom up?
It's been said that the United States has squandered a lot of precious time by operating without a comprehensive energy policy since the oil crises of the 1970s and 1980s. Now, rising energy prices have motivated many Americans to call for a plan that will bring about the country's "energy independence," or at the very least, wean us off of Middle Eastern oil.
They just differ on who should control the process. Should government swing the stick that will make businesses and consumers adopt renewable energy and practice conservation? Or should businesses alone dangle in front of customers the carrot of competively priced alternatives?
To prove their case, representatives of either argument trot out historical examples of when government or businesses, or in some cases individuals, best addressed previous challenges and crises. Arguments tend to float near the extremes of the "invisible hand of the free market" and communism while ignoring various shades of gray in between.
(Examples of energy plans with different emphases: here, here and here. Which kind do you most favor?)
The debate also seems to be largely about how we can continue to grow the economy while either switching to alternative energy sources or decreasing oil prices through new supplies and technology. Barack Obama wants to spend $150 billion on clean energy jobs, increase the production of plug-in hybrid cars and implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. John McCain wants to eliminate mandates and subsidies for corn-based ethanol and expand off-shore drilling.
But has the debate been properly defined? Should we focus solely on prices as motivation for lifestyle changes without talking about equitable distribution of resources or the total amount of fossil fuels we should burn given the various environmental concerns?
Should you and I leave it up to government or the marketplace without reevaluating or reprioritizing our dependence on modern air conditioning and heat, personal vehicles and industrialized food? And do current economic and government policies work equally well in a world of abundant resources and a world of declining resources?
Are politicians and economists telling the truth when they brag about fossil fuels' benefits without disclosing their environmental, political and social costs (of course, all courses of action will have some disadvantages)? And are they making promises they can't keep, pretending that energy independence can come without extreme sacrifice on the part of Americans?
Is it fair for Americans to whine about taxes and high gas prices but not use their own ingenuity and creativity to cut their fuel and electricity use? What do you think is missing from the debate?
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"Is it fair for Americans to whine about taxes and high gas prices but not use their own ingenuity and creativity to cut their fuel and electricity use?"
No, it isn't. The problem has to be solved BOTH top down and bottom up, but the bottom doesn't need to wait for the top. They are a lot of things each of us can do, right now, today, while we wait for the "top" to do what it needs to do.
Eventually we'll need BOTH a stronger, centralized and better controlled "grid" and also more and more local independence from the grid.
Posted on October 6, 2008 1:41 PM