Author points out signs at energy crossroads
U.S. commitment compared to quest for atomic weapon during WWII
Scott A. Yates, Capital Press
SPOKANE - The majority of Paul Roberts' presentation at Washington State University's All Extension Conference addressed America's role in responding to the world's energy crisis, but he acknowledged something more important than fueling cars or industry.
"All these other things we are trying to hold onto are secondary," he said. "If we lose food security, we have lost the whole game."
Roberts, author of "The End of Oil," which examines America and the world's response to declining oil stocks, was the keynote speaker at the March 6-8 extension conference in Spokane. The conference was built around an energy theme for a reason. Roberts told the assembled educators and outreach personnel their job is to push back when people say there is no problem.
"You are in a new world in which energy will be constrained. You need to be persuasive for energy. The status quo is no longer stable," he said, arguing that energy must become an issue politicians can't avoid.
In a speech that was by turns thought-provoking and humorous, the Leavenworth, Wash.-based author listed a variety of reactions to today's energy crisis: those who are completely oblivious to the problem; those who believe whatever they do must be OK if they can afford it; and those who have faith that, whatever the problem, "the market and divine intervention" will create a solution in 20 to 30 years.
"We want a quick fix. We get down one or two layers and say, 'Oh, we handled that,' and then in five years we are in the same place," he said. "We can patch it and limp along, or we can transform it. This is the most exciting and biggest opportunity this generation has had since World War II. We have no choice. It is being forced upon us. The question is how we respond.
"Waiting for another all-purpose energy source to present itself isn't the answer.
"It is hard to imagine a single fuel to replace oil," he said, noting how adaptable the fuel is. Furthermore, putting all of society's energy eggs in a one-solution basket is foolhardy.
"If we get behind a single technology and invest time and money and heart in it and realize it doesn't work because it's not cost-effective or too dangerous, then we have committed all this time and resource to one technology and we're back to square one," he said. "We need to make multiple bets, and we haven't had to do that in 60 years."
He compared the commitment America needs to make to energy to the country's drive for an atom bomb during World War II.
"We had four ideas for making (nuclear) fuel. Instead of running one after the other, we did them simultaneously, and we came up with enough fuel for two bombs. It's a gruesome analogy, but we have the potential to address problems on multiple fronts," he said.
Unlike oil, which is produced and distributed largely out of view of society, Roberts said, the energy production of the future will be visible. Whether it's wind or solar or something else, "we may have to imagine a world where the energy infrastructure is in front of us."
So how much time do we have? Roberts said there are a multitude of opinions regarding the arrival of peak oil production - the point at which oil production worldwide will begin to decline.
Some think we're in the middle of the peak now. Others say we have 40 years before the peak is reached.
Although he isn't worried about any particular oil-producing country embargoing the United States, trusting in the market to distribute whatever is available, he is concerned with the possibility of a political or terrorist upheaval shutting off oil from any of the large producers.
And there is plenty of unrest in the oil-producing countries. He called Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, a police state populated by people with barely controlled rage who would elect Osama bin Laden president if given the opportunity.
Regarding today's ethanol boom, Roberts said, it's great news for farmers who grow grain, but not so great for cattle ranchers, feedlot owners and manufacturers of everything from corn flakes to Coke. And then there's the fact if all the corn produced in the country were turned into ethanol, it would replace only 20 percent of the gasoline used.
Ultimately, Roberts said, he is concerned the rush to corn-based ethanol will give biofuels such a black eye politically that it will tar more-sustainable crop-based technologies of the future. At the same time, he said, it's a luxury that biofuels have the sort of profile that they can be maligned. Five years ago, energy was at the margins of political debate. Today, it is front and center.
"We will sort it out to get the balance we need. Five years ago, this wouldn't have been possible," he said.
members.aol.com |
