| Please write to your representatives in
Congress: During the fast for the future we will send senators and
representatives in Congress a letter similar to the one which follows. Please join
this campaign to bring attention the EIA and promote its support.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear [Representative
or Senator]:
I wish to bring your attention to the Energy
Independence Act of 2008 (EIA) and seek your support in its passage. I
believe our nation desperately needs this measure and to encourage its
passage I am committing to a minimum 14-day fast beginning Monday, January
14, 2008.
As with many
Americans, I have become troubled by recent events and by what seem like
myopic responses to them by our national leadership. Please consider these
numbers:
$79 billion: the amount committed
in the first defense supplemental passed for the war in Iraq in April, 2003,
FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom[1].
$189.4
billion: the amount committed to continue to fund
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the most recent defense supplemental,
passed by the Senate in a 90-3 vote this last December[2].
$483
billion: the cumulative amount estimated to have
been spent on the Iraq war to date[3].
$1.6
trillion: the amount estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office that the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns will
cost by 2017[4].
What
particularly troubles me about the last figure is not so much the dollar
value, but the date: 2017. Ted Koppel led a documentary recently titled:
Our Children’s Children’s War[5].
It seems increasingly plain that as we collectively face our massive
dependence on foreign energy sources, we are ever more willing to spend any
amount of money, any amount of time and even risk our children’s lives to
maintain the status quo rather than commit to credible strategic efforts to
break the bonds of this dependence.
I am
especially troubled because I have two small boys. When our leaders talk of
fighting this war for generations, they may believe they are speaking in
abstractions, but they are not. The boys who play with trains, cars and
stuffed animals on the floors of my home are flesh and blood and while I
will support them if they feel called by their country when their time
comes, I will nevertheless insist that their commitments be to the
preservation of our values here and abroad, not to the preservation of the
current petroleum supply chain.
All of this
has left me asking: What would we pay for
energy independence?
Indeed, rarely
when we contemplate conversion of our current economy to an infrastructure
based on locally available raw materials such as coal or renewables
including wind and solar do we see cost estimates that can compete with what
we have shown ourselves willing and able to borrow and pay just to secure
the petroleum supply chain from the Middle East.
I believe that
our energy dependence weakens us and moreover I believe our enemies and
strategic challengers the world over know this, including but not limited to
powerful interests that control Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China and North
Korea – three of these being sources of energy upon whom we increasingly
depend, one being a major competitor in almost all global dimensions where
there is competition and potential conflict and the last being a raw
threat.
America’s
enemies, challengers and naysayers are emboldened by both our dependence on
foreign energy and our military over-commitment to sustaining the status
quo. So long as they are emboldened they will find more ways to challenge
us, they will be successful more often doing so and the world in general
will be less stable. Those who oppose us know that
our dependence on foreign energy and our military over-commitment to
sustaining that dependence weakens us.
Do we?
All of this
fills me with dismay, but some things give me hope. Here are a few:
·
Oil can now be produced from coal
liquefaction at a cost of $40/barrel[6]
(compared to the ~$100/barrel that petroleum trades at presently)
·
Whatever the cost to build and deploy
them – a finite number of solar cells and electric windmill
generators would provide for all the energy needs of the United States and
North America – indeed, as the number of orders increases the resulting
economy of scale will cause the price per unit to decrease
With so much
coal available in North America and with the price of generating oil from
coal so low, anyone might ask why free market investors do not commit funds
to growing and exploiting this opportunity. The reason is that in the
1970s, the last time there was an oil shock, investors poured money into
coal liquefaction and oil shale, only to watch their investments evaporate
when petroleum prices dropped in the early 1980s. Investors today observe
the high price of petroleum but worry that renewed investments in
alternatives face the same risk as they did thirty years ago and therefore
withhold their investment dollars.
The peril of
money, lives lost and time that energy dependence places on us now plainly
exceeds the risk investors face in the uncertain petroleum commodities
market. As such, to guarantee our future, I submit that we guarantee
private investments in domestically available alternative energy resources.
The proposed EIA would do that by two or three means:
(1) At no cost
to the U.S. government or taxpayer and as a massive boon to the U.S.
economy: create a “market signal” that will guarantee the safety of
investments in domestic sources of liquid fuel that will create affordable
alternatives to foreign petroleum by capping and subsequently decreasing
the allowable level of oil imports—this market signal will let investors
know that by way of law a niche is being carved out in the US energy market
making it a safe haven for the aggressive development of liquid fuel
alternatives
(2) To both
open up raw materials resources for liquid fuels and to offset environmental
impacts from deriving liquid fuels from sources such as coal, as well as to
diversify the US energy portfolio, provide funds for development of power
from wind and solar in amounts that are comparable to what we now spend on
the war in Iraq
(3) Encourage
conversion of the US automotive fleet to plug-in hybrids; the U.S.
Department of Energy estimated in 2006 that off-peak idle electric grid
capacity would be sufficient to power 84% of vehicles in the U.S. if all
vehicles were immediately converted to electric power[7];
as such, the EIA may also provide funds, credits and rebates to manufactures
to ramp up research and production of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and
generous incentives for consumers to buy them
The problem of
our energy dependence is so grave and severe that I do not believe we can
leave its solution to chance, the vagaries of the market or to the leaders
of the future. Indeed, we owe it to the future to do everything in our
power to wrest ourselves free of this burden so that we do not pass it on,
along with all of the debts of treasure, lives and time that it has
incurred, to our children and theirs. Moreover, the money and lives that we
spend and risk to continue the war in Iraq belie the supposition that money
does not already exist to do the right thing and break this dependence and
should, if nothing else, shame us into finding the political will
necessary. If we can borrow $483 billion (and counting) to invade and
occupy Iraq, we can absorb the risk of capping our oil imports while
borrowing $150-300 billion to break the addiction that places us at such a
dangerous strategic disadvantage.
Why continue
to invest money in the military stabilization of the Middle East when we can
instead invest our dollars locally, break our dependence on that region and
put an end to the indirect funding of its extremists through purchase of
foreign-sourced petroleum?
The EIA will
show the world once again that the US has profound self-confidence that can
be called upon in times of national crisis and that it is capable of
accomplishing any achievement that it sets itself to no matter how great.
By this it will have a secondary effect of promoting increased global
stability and restoration of American respect and prestige. Its passage is
urgent. Strong leadership is essential because so much of our military is
already on rotation into the Middle East and so much money is required to
support their campaign. We can no longer afford to delay.
My fast will
begin on January 14, 2008 to support passage of the EIA. The fast will last
14 days and may be extended if health permits and traction materializes.
The terms of the fast will be a modified “black fast”, the strictest fast
practiced by Catholic monastics. Modifications will be either for (1)
medical health, i.e.: consumption of drugs and/or supplements or (2)
professional, i.e.: allowing timing and quantities of collations to be based
on classes that I teach in the university rather than based exclusively on
the time of the day. Details about all of this, as well as information
about the EIA and means and arguments for breaking energy dependence are all
published online at usafuture.org.
I have
enclosed a summary and explanation of the three main components of the EIA
which I plead that you carefully study and consider. After thoughtful
reflection on both what is at stake and how very much we are capable of, I
hope you will consider supporting the EIA and in doing so provide leadership
and confidence that the US needs to break free from foreign energy
dependence.
Sincerely,
<Your Name>
The Energy Independence Act of 2008 –
Summary of Key Points
|
Component of
the Act |
Method and
Expected Effects |
|
|
|
|
Component 1:
Market Signal
Capping imports,
guaranteeing investments
North American
sources allowed
December 31, 2017:
Energy Independence Day? |
Method
At present the
U.S. imports about 12.3 million barrels of oil per day[8].
The EIA will make of the US a “safe” economy for alternative energy
investors by placing a cap on these imports. Terms of the cap are
as follows:
- The cap
goes into effect six months after passage of the bill
- The cap
begins at the level of current consumption, again: about 12.3
million barrels of oil / day
- The cap
automatically decreases once every six months thereafter by
500,000 barrels of oil per day
- By the
previous three points, the act provides 1 year after its passage
before its cap meaningfully decreases permissible oil imports -
providing time for companies and investors to build domestic
liquid energy capacity
- The
automatic cap decrease stays in effect until such a time as all
petroleum imports can be made exclusively from North American
sources (Canada and Mexico) – approximately 3.45 million barrels
of oil / day using current consumption and supply figures[9]
If the EIA is
signed into law on June 30, 2008, the following table delineates the
path to “Energy Independence Day”. Using current consumption and
supply values, that day can be December 31, 2017:
|
Date |
Import Cap |
|
|
|
|
December
31, 2008 |
12.3
million barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2009 |
11.8
million barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2009 |
11.3
million barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2010 |
10.8
million barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2010 |
10.3
million barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2011 |
9.8 million
barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2011 |
9.3 million
barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2012 |
8.8 million
barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2012 |
8.3 million
barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2013 |
7.8 million
barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2013 |
7.3 million
barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2014 |
6.8 million
barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2014 |
6.3 million
barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2015 |
5.8 million
barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2015 |
5.3 million
barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2016 |
4.8 million
barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2016 |
4.3 million
barrels / day |
|
June 30,
2017 |
3.8 million
barrels / day |
|
December
31, 2017 |
3.3 million
barrels / day |
|
|
Component of
the Act |
Method and
Expected Effects |
|
|
|
|
Component 1:
Market Signal (Continued from previous page)
No shock effect
US: A global investment magnet
Increased private research
Local economic activity
Downward pressure
on gasoline prices
Investment of American petrodollars,
locally in the US
Global stability through
US self-confidence |
Expected Effects
Opponents of
this act can be expected to object that the cap on oil imports will
negatively impact the economy. Some will probably exaggerate these
complaints with alarmist rhetoric. Actually, much like a diet, we
expect that the cap will have an opposite effect and be a positive
boon to the economy by way of the following reciprocally magnifying
effects (see also the enclosed diagram: "e-iCEP: The Energy
Independence Cycle of Economic Prosperity”):
1.
The act’s passage will not cause an economic shock because
the act provides a year of petroleum imports at current levels –
plenty of time for investors build capacity from alternative sources
2.
Billions of dollars are available throughout the world whose
owners seek promising investments; this act tells investors that
they can safely invest in the US alternative energy market because
there will be guaranteed demand in the US for domestically
produced liquid fuel; the act provides investors and producers
one year to build capacity to address new demand; hundreds of
millions, probably billions of investment dollars will pour into the
US during the initial period to grow capacity
3.
Private investment dollars will pour into domestic research
in improved technical methodologies for energy liquefaction
4.
The domestic economy will experience a boon as activity revs
up around deployment of liquefaction facilities and the sale and
distribution of new liquid fuel supplies
5.
Petroleum is a commodity so increases in its supply anywhere
by any source create downward pressure on the global price that all
consumers pay everywhere; the global commodity price of petroleum
should face downward pressure because (a) the low ($40/barrel) price
of current liquefaction technology, (b) the increase in net global
supply through availability of new alternatives in the US and (c)
the decrease in US demand for foreign supplies
6.
American petrodollars which are today sent overseas by the
billions and which often serve to enrich enemies or opponents, will
increasingly be redirected at domestic producers, revving up the
economy and promoting the value of the dollar by reducing the trade
deficit
7.
The effect of the act’s passage will be the opposite of a
“shock” – the greater source of insecurity the world over is US
energy dependence; a self-confident US making a legally binding
commitment to break with its addiction will promote confidence
locally and merit respect abroad that will translate into stability |
Component of
the Act |
Method and
Expected Effects |
|
|
|
|
Component 2:
Massive investment in renewable energy
Because children’s lives
are not abstractions, they
are flesh and blood
A finite number
$150 billion to convert
to wind and solar
Coal-burning facilities
put to bed
Coal (& other) for transportation
Solar and wind for the grid
Lower greenhouse
gas emissions
Drawbacks of coal
liquefaction mitigated |
A Matter of Conscience
Present spending
and projections for the war in Iraq cavalierly envision employing
today’s children to fight to sustain the petroleum supply chain from
the Middle East. We must not allow that this be Our Children’s
Children’s War[10].
Our consciences require that we show ourselves willing to spend
national treasure to assure that if our children are called upon to
fight when they are adults that they are called upon to fight for
our values, not our lifestyle.
Method
Whatever their
cost, a finite number of solar cells and electric windmill
generators is sufficient to provide for all of the US’s
non-transportation energy consumption needs and with the
proliferation of plug-in, hybrid electric vehicles, they can
increasingly provide energy for transportation as well.
The Iraq war is
estimated to have cost $483 billion to date. The US is good for the
credit. As such, the EIA will commit $150 billion in grants,
rebates and credits to encourage or provide for energy producers to
lay down massive networks of solar and wind energy farms,
replacing coal-fired facilities. As much as $50 billion of this
amount will be earmarked for domestic research on increasing the
efficiency of wind and solar energy production and distribution as
well as environmentally safe, cleaner means of liquid energy
production.
Expected Effects
This investment
will strategically re-orient the country to convert the coal-based
electric grid to one which is solar and wind based, while shifting
coal and other raw material resources to liquefaction.
The elimination
of coal-burning power plants and their replacement with solar and
wind energy farms will have a massive, cleaning effect on the
environment and should more than compensate for US commitments to
global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
From an
automotive perspective, use of coal and other sources such as
biomass for liquid fuel production may be a net-zero in terms of
environmentally damaging emissions and may even have a temporary
negative impact on mercury pollution. Nevertheless, at a minimum
this conversion will be a major step in the right direction because
solar and wind farms will replace coal-fired power plants.
Increased use of plug-in hybrids powered by off-peak idle energy
will effectively decrease transportation-based emissions (see
component 3). Also, monies committed to research should result in
technologies to create fuel using liquefaction that do not result in
meaningful pollution of any kind. |
Component of
the Act |
Method and
Expected Effects |
|
|
|
|
Component 3:
Investment in Plug-in Hybrids
Optional?
$150 billion for
plug-in hybrids
Manufacturer investments
Consumer change |
This is the only
component of the act which may be considered “optional”. It is
reasonable to expect that if passed with only components 1 and 2,
that the US will confidently be on its way to energy independence.
Nevertheless, considering the stakes, this last component would
provide an ample “hedge” should progress falter on either of the
other two components.
Method
Again, bearing
in mind that the billions borrowed to pay for the Iraq war prove
American creditworthiness AND bearing in mind both the considerable
short and long-term returns on investment of breaking American
dependence on foreign petroleum sources, the EIA will commit $150
billion in grants, credits and rebates for (a) research into the
development of plug-in hybrid vehicles, (b) the creation of
production and distribution capacity for these vehicles and (c)
their final purchase by consumers.
Boeing or
Lockheed-Martin are aircraft manufacturers whose national security
role has long been understood. This EIA component recognizes the
similar national security role played by the nation’s automobile
manufactures and provides the means for those manufacturers to carry
out their duties within that role.
Expected Effect
Manufacturers
will discontinue futile and unwholesome resistance to stricter CAFE
standards which themselves should become moot. Instead they will
commit to research into energy efficient vehicles and their eventual
production and distribution.
Consumers will
see benefits in terms of vehicles achieving 75, 100 or more miles to
the gallon made possible by off-peak use of idle electric grid
capacity. These new vehicles will be available for purchase at a
great discount by way of an aggressive, generous tax credit that
will encourage consumers to expeditiously replace the current,
inefficient American automotive fleet with one that creates
collective promise for our shared future. |
Endnotes
[1]
“World Wide Military Expenditures”. Global Security.org.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm.
Retrieved on January 8, 2008.
[2]
Cornwell, Susan. “Congress authorizes war funds and sends bill to
Bush”. Reuters. December 14, 2007.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1453993320071214.
Retrieved on December 14, 2007.
[3]
“War in Iraq Costs”. National Priorities Project. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home.
Retrieved on January 8, 2008.
[4]
“Parsing the Estimates on Iraq-War Costs”. Wall Street Journal.
November 15, 2007. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/parsing-the-estimates-on-iraq-war-costs-226/.
Retrieved on December 14, 2007.
[5]
“Koppel on Discovery”. Discovery Channel. Our Children’s
Children’s War. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/koppel/highlights/highlights-03.html.
Retrieved January 8, 2008.
[6]
Shogren, Elizabeth. “The Future of Fuel: Turning Dirty Coal into
Clean Energy”. National Public Radio. April 25, 2006. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5356683.
May 23, 2006. Retrieved on April 27, 2007.
[7]
Bauer, Susan. “Mileage From Megawatts: Study Finds Enough Electric
Capacity to 'Fill Up' Plug-In Vehicles Across Much of the Nation”.
Ascribe – the Public Interest Newswire. Dec. 11, 2006. http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20061211.105149&time=11%2005%20PST&year=2006&public=0.
Retrieved on January 8, 2008.
[8]
“Petroleum Navigator – US Net Imports by Country”. Energy
Information Administration. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_ep00_IMN_mbblpd_m.htm.
Retrieved on January 8, 2008.
[9]
Ibid. “Petroleum Navigator – US Net Imports by Country”
[10]
Ibid. “Koppel on Discovery”. Discovery Channel.
|