Al Gore has written a nice op. ed. piece in the New York Times wherein he lays out his ideal energy plan. Gore describes a five-part plan to transform our nation’s electricity infrastructure over the next decade into something wonderfully nationalistic: a self-contained, distributed grid of electricity producers and automobiles to match. The subtext of this piece is this: coal and oil have to go.
Now, I like Al Gore. I’m inclined to believe that his plan is something we as a nation should work towards, but I’m dismayed by the way his piece reads. Gore ignores the plight of the millions of Americans who currently work in various parts of the United States that produce coal and oil. While I agree that we must refurbish our grid to make it possible for wind and solar to be feasible, Gore seems to have forgotten about the American workers. What are they to do? Should we ask millions to move West to work in the new wind and solar facilities we’ll build?
I believe that any comprehensive plan runs the risk of offending people; we are discussing the change of the status quo here. However, I also believe that compromise is the heart of democracy and a middle ground can be found. To wit, I think that our nation should invest heavily in the gasification of coal. While Gore dismisses “clean coal” as a pipe dream, a pragmatist must include a coal strategy in an effective energy plan for our country. Gasification of coal is not the most practical use of coal of course, but it does address two major concerns that middle Americans like me have: foreign oil and concerns for existing jobs. If we convert our coal industry into a gasoline/diesel-producing industry we have a major source of leverage with regards to foreign oil producers (e.g. Middle Eastern countries, Russia, and Venezuela). One must realize that it may be decades before the last gasoline-based car leaves the road (let alone a diesel truck), so we must provide a way to rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil without asking all citizens of America to instantly change. By producing coal-based gasoline we can move in the right direction.
Regarding hybrid vehicles, I invite the Obama administration to charge Congress with a radical idea: put your money where your mouth is. By mandating that all future purchases of vehicles for civilian use by the federal government produce zero emissions (or radically lower emissions) the “Big 3″ will respond in kind. If instead we continue to purchase gas guzzlers from Ford while saying “you really need to create more efficient, lower emission vehicles” we effectively become hypocrites. I know Mr. Gore has himself been criticized (in my opinion unfairly) about his use of an energy inefficient cars while promoting his ideology. Our government needs to start using clean vehicles to do its work; everything from driving Senators to work to delivering our mail should be done in a low-emission vehicle. This is real trickle-down economics, for this follows an old principle: if our government mandates that they themselves use lower emissions, higher efficiency vehicles the consumer-class of America will follow in their footsteps.
Finally, a comprehensive energy package needs to involve and address the air-travel industry. This is an area that demands further research; how can air travel become more efficient without risking safety? I’m certain the engineers at Boeing and Lockheed will do our nation proud by following the examples defined above.
What about nuclear? As I understand it, a huge investment in solar and wind power could only supply something like 10% of our power. This may be worthwhile, but it is only a partial solution. Nuclear is the only option that has real potential to replace coal. Despite the fear and negative image surrounding nuclear power, there is a resurgence in interest. Due to the threat of global warming, some environmentalists who have long opposed nuclear power have become strong advocates for its use.
I don’t think that the loss of jobs due to moving away from coal is any reason to reconsider. This happens all the time as industries change. Old jobs are lost and new jobs are created. It will happen gradually. If we decided today to stop most of our coal usage, it would probably take 50 years to achieve that goal.
I do agree that economic motivation provided by the government is the best way to kick-start the industry towards innovation.
Air travel seems like a problem with no solution under today’s technology. Efficiency can be improved by percentage points, but there’s no way to move away from burning gasoline. The best I can come up with is to replace certain flights with bullet trains which run on clean power.
Oh yeah, I’m definitely in favor of nuclear. However, the cynical side of me says that in order for our country to adopt it in the volume it ought we need to stop calling it nuclear. In my opinion, simply calling it fission instead would change the perception of the safety and cleanliness of the power plants overnight.
I cannot disagree more with your statement about the loss and creation of jobs. Our country’s map is very much region == industry. Consider how many Michigan citizens are connected to the automobile industry, or how many technology people are in California. If one of those industries suddenly dried up and vanished it would devastate the region. Of course, we don’t really have to talk in hypotheticals here, as many Americans are losing the regional factories and the jobs they provide every day.
“Separate from his differences with Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama has signaled to the automakers and the unions that his support for short-term aid now, and long-term assistance once he takes office, is contingent on their willingness to agree to transform their industry to make cleaner, more energy-efficient vehicles.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11auto.html
Profits from revitalizing the American auto industry will be a while, I’m sure; though I’m confident that if a slick, energy efficient vehicle were produced it would significantly speed up that timetable. It’s going to take time to get there. However, in the meantime, the “Big 3″ are drowning in their own inefficiency. While the idea of the feds intervening as they are in ‘private’ businesses makes me queasy, everyone agrees something has to be done. The above quote gives me at least a faint hope that perhaps finally someone will stop complaining about how awful the American auto industry has become and actually do something to help turn it around. I’m confident that GM can turn things around (so much so that I bought up more stock in it this week), but their position is very much like a poor college student tapping their parents for money– Mom, Dad, I just need some cabbage to get by until the next payday, and I promise I won’t buy beer with it (read: reward shareholders and top execs). The inherent risk in bailing them out or investing in their company is their hypothetical payday might never come. The auto industry is such a huge part of this country, and I say that as a daughter (and yes, I use that term ironically
) of an autoworker. With the decline of Mitsubishi in this town, the economic growth in B-N has definitely slowed.
It all makes me nervous, though. I wish I can flip forward four years like I can flip to the back of Harry Potter– I’d love to know the ending before I invest in these current characters. (I know that still drives you crazy, tee hee!) While I ruefully admit it’s necessary to give the government more sweeping control than in the past to help clean up the mess we’re in, what’s to say they’re going to give up their big stick when it’s fixed? I’m all for a stable economy, clean air and a planet that isn’t rotting itself to death… but man, in the end I don’t want to have to become a pinko. I don’t like sauerkraut that much.
Yeah, in rereading this it ended up not having much to do with your actual post Josh, LOL. I just haven’t been able to discuss politics with anyone who’s more moderate lately– seems like I’m surrounded by either foaming at mouth liberals or wingnut conservatives.
The bullet train idea isn’t a bad one, actually. I read an article last week which likened the correlation between building high-efficiency and high-speed trains to the construction and building of the original interstates. The theory is it will create jobs, revitalize the travel industry, help the American steelworker, etc etc.